A 

A 

0 


8 


Sidelights  on 
Contemporary  Socialism 

John  Spargo 


Sidelights   on 
Contemporary   Socialism 


(JSidelights   on 
Contemporary  Socialism 


BY 


JOHN    SPARGO 


NEW    YORK 

B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

1911 


^^t( 


Copyright.  1911 
By  B.  W.  HUEBSCH 


PRINTED  IN  U.   S.  A. 


VICTOR  L.   BERGER 

FAITHFUL  INTERPRETER  OF  MARX 
AND  LOYAL  COMRADE 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I    Marx,  Leader  and  Guide i3 

II    Anti-intellectualism  in  the  Socialist  Move- 
ment:   A  Historical  Survey 65 

III    The  Influence  of  Marx  on  Contemporary 

Socialism io7 


FOREWORD 

THE  present  volume,  like  several  of  the 
author's  earlier  works,  is  made  up  of 
lectures  dehvered  from  time  to  time, 
somewhat  revised  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  publication  in  book  form.  The  lectures 
differ  from  all  the  author's  lectures  on  So- 
cialism heretofore  published  in  that,  Instead 
of  being  addressed  to  non-Socialists  in  the  In- 
terests of  the  Socialist  propaganda,  they  were 
addressed  to  his  fellow  Socialists  and  deal 
with  various  problems  within  the  Socialist 
movement  itself.  They  are  fairly  typical,  in 
spirit  and  substance,  of  the  lectures  which  re- 
sponsible Socialists  are  constantly  delivering 
to  their  comrades. 

While  the  problems  discussed  primarily 
concern  and  interest  those  who  are  avowed 
Socialists,  and  especially  those  who  are  mem- 
bers of  organized  Socialist  bodies,  they  are 

[9.1 


foreword 


of  interest  and  importance  to  every  tliought- 
ful  student  of  Socialism.  Otherwise,  the  pub- 
lication of  this  volume  would  not  be  justifi- 
able. 

The  term  "  liberal  Marxian  Socialist,"  is 
fairly  accurate  as  a  description  of  the  author's 
attitude  toward  Marx  and  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. He  believes  that  the  teachings  of 
Marx,  interpreted  in  a  liberal  spirit,  such  as 
Marx  himself  would  approve,  rather  than  in 
the  narrow,  dogmatic  spirit  which  Marx  con- 
demned, constitute  the  best  basis  for  success- 
ful Socialist  agitation  and  policy. 

There  are  to-day  in  the  Socialist  move- 
ment, as  there  were  in  the  lifetime  of  Marx, 
those  who  would  interpret  Marx's  teachings 
in  such  a  narrow  and  dogmatic  manner  as 
to  prevent  the  progress  of  the  movement 
beyond  the  limits  of  a  sect  wedded  to  a 
dogma.  That  they  are  false  to  the  spirit  of 
Marx  himself  is  the  burden  of  the  three  lec- 
tures here  published. 

The  first  lecture,  Marx,  Leader  and  Guide, 
was  prepared  as  a  memorial  lecture  to  com- 

[lO] 


Foreword 


memorate  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of 
Marx's  death,  and  delivered  in  many  cities 
under  Socialist  party  auspices. 

The  second,  Anti-intellectiialism  in  the  So- 
cialist Movement,  was  delivered  to  an  audi- 
ence of  Socialists  at  the  Rand  School  of  Social 
Science,  New  York  City,  at  a  time  when  the 
membership  of  the  Socialist  Party  was  much 
disturbed  by  controversy  on  the  subject.  It 
was  the  author's  contribution  to  the  disputa- 
tion. 

The  third  lecture,  The  Influence  of  Marx 
on  Contemporary  Socialism,  was  prepared  for 
a  convention  of  the  Intercollegiate  Socialist 
Society,  in  January,  19 lo.  Owing  to  un- 
foreseen circumstances,  it  was  not  delivered 
before  that  body,  however.  It  was  first  de- 
livered in  Chicago,  at  the  Garrick  Theater, 
and  then  repeated  in  many  cities,  always  un- 
der Socialist  auspices.  The  election  of  a  new 
National  Executive  Committee  gave  rise  to  a 
good  deal  of  animated  controversy  among 
Socialist  Party  members  concerning  the  rel- 
ative merits  of  the  two  wings  of  the  move- 


Foreword 


ment,  broadly  designated  as  "  opportunist " 
and  "  revolutionary."  The  author,  being  a 
candidate  for  election,  desired  to  set  his  views 
clearly  before  his  fellow  Socialists,  so  that  the 
lecture  might  almost  be  described  as  a  per- 
sonal manifesto.  It  has  already  appeared  in 
print  in  the  American  Journal  of  Sociology, 
and  thanks  are  due  to  the  editor.  Prof.  Albion 
W.  Small,  for  his  kind  permission  to  reprint 
It  here. 

John  Spargo. 
"  Nestledown," 
Old  Bennington,  Vt., 
February,   191 1. 


[12] 


I 

MARX,  LEADER  AND  GUIDE 


ON  the  fourteenth  of  March,  1883,  Karl 
Marx  died  in  his  armchair  in  a  simple 
cottage  near  the  northern  height  of 
Hampstead  Heath,  London's  famous  play- 
ground. Shortly  before  two  o'clock  he  fell 
into  a  comatose  state,  and  his  daughter  Elea- 
nor and  Helene  Demuth,  the  nurse,  at  once 
sent  for  Friedrich  Engels,  the  friend  who  was 
more  than  blood-brother  to  Marx.  When 
Engels  arrived  and  went  to  the  plainly  fur- 
nished study  he  saw  through  his  tears  that 
Karl  Marx  was  no  more.  Seated  in  his  arm- 
chair, the  great  revolutionist  had  passed 
beyond  the  bourne  of  time  and  place  with  a 
smile,  and  Death  had  frozen  the  smile  upon 
the  silent  lips. 

Three  days  later  he  was  burled  in  High- 
gate  Cemetery,  in  the  grave  where  his  beauti- 
ful and  devoted  wife   already  lay.     Among 

[15] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

the  mourners  at  the  graveside  were  some  of 
his  trusted  comrades  and  friends,  men  and 
women  whose  deeds  fill  a  large  place  in  rev- 
olutionary annals.  For  the  cause  of  Social- 
ism, under  the  inspiration  of  the  dead  leader, 
they  had  sacrificed  comfort  and  pleasure,  ac- 
cepted ignominy  and  endured  poverty,  prison 
and  exile.  Over  the  open  grave  Engels 
spoke,  declaring  with  a  sobbing  voice  that 
Karl  Marx  had  done  for  sociology  what 
Charles  Darwin  did  for  biology,  and  that  the 
two  names  must  forever  be  linked  together. 
Twenty-five  years  have  elapsed  since  Eng- 
els in  his  grief  uttered  that  estimate  of  his 
beloved  friend  and  coworker.  Within  that 
period,  the  fame  of  Marx  has  steadily 
grown,  and  the  scholarship  of  the  world  now 
accords  his  name  the  high  honor  which  Engels 
claimed  for  it.  The  discussion  of  his  socio- 
logical and  economic  theories  has  produced 
thousands  of  volumes,  and  each  year  the  num- 
ber of  them  grows.  No  longer  the  idol  of 
a  small  sect  of  worshipers  merely,  Marx  is 
now    recognized    as    a    great    and    brilliant 

[i6] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

thinker  as  unreservedly  by  those  who  oppose 
his  theories  as  by  those  who  advocate  them. 

Had  he  no  other  title  to  fame,  the  fact 
that  his  thought  has  so  profoundly  Influ- 
enced the  development  of  the  great  interna- 
tional Socialist  movement  that  the  movement 
may  almost  be  said  to  rest  upon  his  theories 
would  assure  Marx  an  honored  place  among 
the  great  figures  of  the  wonderful  nineteenth 
century.  Quite  regardless  of  the  value  of 
those  theories  when  tested  in  the  great  cru- 
cible of  experience,  the  fact  that  they  have 
played  such  an  important  part  in  one  of  the 
greatest  movements  in  the  history  of  the 
world  elevates  their  author  to  a  plane  far 
above  that  of  ordinary  mortals. 

For  "  Marxism  "  and  "  Socialism  "  are 
practically  synonymous  terms  in  the  literature 
relating  to  modern  Socialism.  Most  of  the 
leading  Socialists  of  the  world  proclaim  them- 
selves Marxists.  Marx  is  the  great  master 
mind  of  the  movement.  Professor  Veblen 
well  and  justly  said,  in  The  Quarterly  Jour- 
nal of  Economics,  that  "  the  Socialism  that  in- 

[17] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

spires  hopes  and  fears  to-day  Is  of  the  school 
of  Marx.  No  one  is  seriously  apprehensive 
of  any  other  so-called  Socialistic  movement, 
and  no  one  Is  seriously  concerned  to  criticize 
or  refute  the  doctrines  set  forth  by  any  other 
school  of  '  Socialists.'  " 


[i8] 


II 


IN  view  of  the  place  he  occupies  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Sociahst  movement,  and  the 
manner  in  which  his  teachings  have  dom- 
inated the  movement,  it  is  remarkable  that 
so  little  is  known  of  Marx  the  man,  even 
by  those  who  are  his  confessed  disciples.  It 
is  at  once  remarkable  and  regrettable,  I  think, 
for  Marx  was  in  many  ways  a  lovable  man, 
in  whose  life  story  there  is  much  to  inspire 
the  earnest  and  thoughtful  Socialist. 

It  is  regrettable,  too,  for  another  reason: 
Much  of  that  corpus  of  criticism  and  theory 
which  we  call  Marxian  doctrine  was  never 
systematically  formulated  or  elaborated  by 
Marx.  This  is  true  even  of  the  great  theory 
of  social  evolution  upon  which  his  claim  to 
an  equal  place  In  history  with  Darwin  rests. 
Whoever  would  consider  the  whole  body  of 
theoretical    Marxism    must    have    patience. 

[19] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

He  must  study  carefully  Marx's  minor  writ- 
ings, the  fugitive  essays,  letters,  pamphlets 
and  addresses  in  which  many  of  his  pro- 
foundest  observations  occur.  A  sympathetic 
insight  into  his  personality  and  life  will 
greatly  ease  the  student's  task. 

Important  as  this  is  to  the  student  of 
Marxian  theory,  it  is  even  more  important 
to  the  Socialist  who  regards  Marx  as  his 
leader.  Within  the  Socialist  movement, 
alike  in  Europe  and  America,  the  greatest 
importance  is  attached  to  Marx's  utterances 
upon  practical  matters,  such  as  the  policy  to 
be  pursued  by  the  Socialist  parties,  and, 
especially,  their  relation  to  other  working- 
class  organizations  like  the  trades  unions 
and  the  cooperative  societies.  Naturally,  the 
views  of  Marx  upon  such  matters  are  re- 
garded with  great  respect  by  his  followers. 
Indeed,  it  Is  an  ancient  gibe  of  the  enemy 
that  the  Socialists  regard  Marx  as  an  in- 
fallible pontiff,  whose  every  opinion  Is  law. 
Mistaken  as  this  criticism  may  be,  it  is  true 
that  Marx's  opinions  often  exercise  decisive 

[20] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

influence  in  shaping  the  pohcles  of  the  So- 
cialist movement,  nationally  and  internation- 
ally. This  "  practical  Marxism,"  if  I  may 
be  permitted  thus  to  designate  the  principles 
and  precepts  Marx  set  down  for  the  prac- 
tical guidance  of  the  movement,  exerts  a  far 
greater  influence  to-day  than  the  principles 
and  theories  which  are  commonly  designated 
by  the  word  "  Marxism." 

Now,  it  is  apparent  to  every  thoughtful 
observer  and  student  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment that  the  amount  of  authority  with  which 
the  word  of  Marx  is  thus  vested  exposes  the 
movement,  in  some  degree,  to  certain  dangers 
which  have  crippled  other  great  and  promis- 
ing movements  in  the  past.  In  the  first 
place,  there  is  the  danger  of  stagnation  and 
decay  through  a  too  complete  reliance  upon 
the  wisdom  of  the  Master,  and  particularly, 
failure  to  realize  that  principles  of  action 
which  were  sound  and  wise  when  advocated 
by  Marx  may  be  unsound  and  unwise  as 
principles  of  action  in  the  changed  conditions 
of  to-day.     Candor   compels   the   admission 

[21] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

that  there  Is  hardly  a  country  In  which  the 
Socialist  movement  has  not  suffered  from  this 
besetting  evil  of  movements  which  owe  much 
of  their  success  to  individual  genius.  Para- 
phrasing one  of  his  own  sayings,  we  might 
fairly  say  that  the  genius  of  Marx  has  at 
times  weighed  like  a  mountain  upon  the 
brains  of  his  disciples. 

It  Is  for  this  reason  that,  regardless  for 
the  moment  of  Its  particular  claims,  the  rise 
of  the  much-misunderstood  "  revisionist  " 
school  within  the  Socialist  movement  is  to  be 
welcomed.  It  is  the  best  safeguard  we  have 
against  intellectual  dry-rot  and  political  deca- 
dence. Primarily  a  restatement  of  certain 
economic  doctrines,  a  criticism  and  a  revision 
of  some  of  the  theories  and  forecasts  of 
Marx  in  the  light  of  present  conditions,  revi- 
sionism has  Its  practical  side.  It  liberates  the 
practical  policies  of  the  movement  from  the 
shackles  of  theories  that  are  outworn  and, 
therefore,  untrue.  To  name  only  one  ex- 
ample of  these :  The  present  successful  ap- 
peal of  the  Socialists  to  agricultural  workers 

[22] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

was  made  possible  only  by  the  overthrow  of 
Marx's  exceedingly  plausible  generalization 
concerning  the  concentration  of  agricultural 
industry. 

Secondly,  there  is  the  danger  that,  in  their 
zeal  and  devotion  to  the  letter  of  Marx, 
Socialists  may  be  the  victims  of  the  deceptive 
parallel,  with  serious  consequences  to  the 
movement.  It  is  so  easy  to  declare,  when 
confronting  a  critical  situation  and  the  need 
for  a  careful  consideration  of  party  policy, 
that  Marx  faced  an  exactly  similar  crisis  forty 
or  fifty  years  ago,  and  laid  down  this  or  that 
principle  for  our  guidance.  But  exact  paral- 
lels rarely  or  never  occur  in  history.  Even 
though  the  same  superficial  conditions  exist, 
there  are  almost  invariably  great  funda- 
mental differences  hidden  somewhere  beneath 
the  surface.  And  such  differences  cannot  be 
ignored  with  wisdom  or  safety. 

It  is  futile,  and  even  dangerous,  to  argue, 
as  many  do,  that  a  condition  existing  in  Eng- 
land, let  us  say,  in  the  first  decade  of  the 
twentieth  century,  which  seems  to  be  a  par- 

[23] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

allel  of  a  condition  existing  In  Germany  in 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  can  be 
treated  as  an  exact  parallel.  Differences  of 
national  temperaments  and  traditions  and  a 
hundred  other  more  obvious  factors,  conspire 
to  make  anything  like  a  real  parallel  impos- 
sible. Equally  absurd  would  it  be  to  insist 
that  the  policy  which  was  successful  in  Ger- 
many must  therefore  be  adopted  in  England 
—  absurd  and  extremely  dangerous. 

Finally,  there  is  the  danger  of  dema- 
goguery.  Every  popular  movement  In  history 
which  has  tacitly  or  avowedly  bowed  to  the 
authority  of  a  great  teacher  or  leader  has 
suffered  from  this  danger.  On  the  one  hand, 
honest  but  ignorant  propagandists,  whose 
sole  equipment  consists  of  their  enthusiasm, 
a  certain  glibness  of  tongue  and  a  plentiful 
supply  of  texts,  soon  acquire  prominence  and 
influence  out  of  all  proportion  to  their  merit. 
This  is  especially  true  of  Socialist  parties  in 
their  formative  periods.  While  it  Is  true 
that  in  the  national  parties  the  ablest  men 
and  women  are  usually  found  in  the  places 

[24] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

of  prominence  and  power,  It  is  only  too 
tragically  true  that  in  the  towns  and  cities 
able  men  and  women  are  often  pushed  aside 
to  make  way  for  Ignorant  demagogues. 

In  the  main,  these  demagogues  obtain  their 
power  and  Influence  through  their  continu- 
ous and  vociferous  professions  of  orthodoxy 
and  loyal  allegiance  to  Marx.  As  the  Devil 
is  said  to  quote  Scripture,  so  they  quote 
Marx.  They  elevate  the  letter  and  kill  the 
spirit!  A  text  is  a  text.  Marx  having  said 
thus  and  so,  nothing  else  remains  to  be  said. 
Let  him  who  denies  or  doubts  be  branded 
as  a  heretic  1  Such  men  are  too  ignorant  to 
consider  calmly  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  words  of  their  texts  were  spoken 
or  written.  The  mental  process  necessary  to 
a  proper  valuation  of  the  words  they  shout 
with  such  oracular  pride  is  too  complex  and 
wearisome  for  them.  But  when  their  texts 
are  answered  by  other  texts,  taken  from  the 
same  "  holy  book,"  they  are  forced  to  per- 
form mental  gymnastics  worthy  of  disputing 
theologians. 

[25] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  the  dema- 
gogues who  cannot  be  called  honest  but 
ignorant.  Self-seeking  charlatans  and  ambi- 
tious political  adventurers  find  it  easy  to 
achieve  distinction  in  movements  composed 
of  earnest  men  and  women  who  can  be  moved 
by  appeals  to  textual  authority.  It  is  easy 
to  fortify  almost  any  position  by  quoting  an 
appropriate  text;  the  blackest  treachery  can 
be  made  to  appear  innocent  by  the  refulgent 
light  of  a  few  well-chosen  texts.  Just  as  it 
has  been  said  that  there  is  hardly  a  folly  or 
a  wrong  which  men  have  not  attempted  to 
justify  by  quoting  texts  from  the  Bible,  so 
it  may  be  said  with  confidence  that  in  the 
Socialist  movement  demagogues  have  at- 
tempted to  justify  many  a  folly  and  wrong 
by  quoting  texts  from  the  writings  of  Marx. 

Does  the  ignorant  demagogue,  with  the 
impatience  characteristic  of  his  kind,  chafe 
and  fret  at  the  slowness  of  parliamentary 
action,  and  shout  desperate  counsels  of  in- 
surrection and  appeals  to  force,  he  fortifies 
his    position    by    some    apt    quotation    from 

[26] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Marx.  He  tears  text  from  context,  and  dis- 
regards entirely  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  words  of  the  text  were  uttered. 
Or,  he  searches  out  some  pessimistic  passage 
born  amid  those  fierce  storms  of  unfaith  and 
despair  which  at  times  overwhelm  all  men 
who,  like  Marx,  devote  themselves  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  new  ideas  or  unpopular  causes. 
That  the  passage  is  belied  by  ten  thousand 
other  passages,  and  by  the  logic  of  Marx's 
life,  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  in  the  eyes 
of  the  demagogues. 

Does  the  self-seeking  political  adventurer 
desire  to  destroy  the  influence  of  some  tried 
and  trusted  leaders  of  the  movement  who 
are  not  actual  wage-earners,  thereby  making 
his  own  advancement  possible,  he  cunningly 
hides  his  real  purpose  behind  the  mask  of 
the  authority  of  Marx,  and  parades  his 
"  orthodoxy."  He  appeals  to  the  worst 
passions  of  the  mob,  thunders  invective 
against  "  middle-class  men  "  and  "  intellectu- 
als," and  declares  that  none  but  actual  wage- 
earners  should  have  a  place  in  the  movement. 

[27] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

He  quotes  Marx  in  support  of  this  wild  non- 
sense, regardless  of  the  fact  that  Marx,  who 
would  himself  have  been  excluded  from  the 
movement  by  it,  condemned  it  with  his 
splendid  powers  of  satire  and  invective. 


[28] 


Ill 


THESE,  then,  are  some  of  the  dangers 
to  which  the  Socialist  movement  is  ex- 
posed; dangers  which  have  their  origin 
in  the  supreme  greatness  of  Marx.  And  the 
surest  safeguard  of  the  movement  against 
those  dangers  is  —  a  more  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  Marx,  the  knowledge  which  can  only 
result  from  a  careful  and  conscientious  study 
of  his  temperament,  his  struggles,  his  hopes, 
his  fears,  his  failures,  in  a  word,  of  his  life. 
It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  world-wide  cele- 
bration of  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  his 
death  will  result  in  a  widespread  diffusion  of 
that  knowledge  among  his  followers. 

That  such  a  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Marx 
as  I  have  indicated  would  serve  to  protect 
the  moverrient  against  the  dangers  outlined 
will  hardly  be  disputed.     When  a  perfectly 

[29] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

sincere  and  honest  Socialist  opposes  the  prop- 
aganda of  Socialism  among  farmers,  because 
he  is  obsessed  by  the  mistaken  generalization 
of  Marx  that  the  small  farmer  is  rapidly  be- 
coming extinct,  in  spite  of  all  the  evidence 
to  the  contrary,  it  Is  impossible  to  resist  the 
conclusion  that  if  he  really  understood  Marx, 
and  had  absorbed  the  spirit  of  his  teaching, 
rather  than  the  mere  letter,  he  would  accept 
the  logic  of  the  facts  and  adjust  his  opinions 
on  questions  of  policy  accordingly. 

Likewise,  it  Is  impossible  to  believe  that 
the  absurd  prejudice  against  the  so-called 
*'  intellectuals  "  in  the  movement  would  be 
tolerated  for  an  hour  If  the  average  Socialist 
knew  the  life-story  of  Marx,  how  the  same 
sinister  appeal  to  prejudice  by  unscrupulous 
demagogues  hampered  him  In  his  great  work. 
And,  surely,  no  attempt  to  use  the  authority 
of  Marx  to  exclude  all  other  than  actual 
wage-earners  from  participation  in  the  So- 
cialist movement  would  receive  attention 
from  men  and  women  who  knew  anything  of 
the  lives  of  Marx  and  Engels,  and  many  of 

[30] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

their  associates  in  the   "  International,"   for 
example. 

When  such  attempts  are  made  to  restrict 
the  Socialist  movement  the  Socialist  who  has 
learned  his  lesson  will  not  be  influenced  by 
a  Marxian  text  or  two  which  appear  to 
justify  the  limitation  of  the  movement  to  the 
actual  wage  earners.  He  will  understand 
something  of  the  impatience,  the  disgust,  the 
disappointment  and  the  despair  which  moved 
Marx  to  express  his  contempt  for  the  entire 
bourgeoisie.  But  he  will  remember  that 
Marx  and  Engels  and  many  of  their  associ- 
ates were  of  that  class.  And  when  he  is  told 
how,  in  the  fifties,  when  Ernest  Jones  was 
trying  to  rekindle  the  ashes  of  Chartism  In 
England,  Marx  ridiculed  the  belief  of  his 
friend  that  he  could  obtain  many  recruits 
from  the  educated  middle  class,  the  well-in- 
formed Socialist  will  not  be  dismayed,  nor 
will  he  be  convinced  that  it  should  be  an 
article  of  Socialist  faith  to  confine  member- 
ship In  the  party  to  actual  proletarians.  He 
will  turn  back  to  the  Commiinist  Manifesto 

[31] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

and  find  assurance  In  Marx's  recognition  of 
the  fact  that  in  every  decisive  class  struggle 
of  history  there  has  always  been  a  section  of 
the  ruling  class  which  has  joined  the  revolu- 
tionary class,  and  that  the  proletariat  will 
be  materially  strengthened  by  the  accession 
to  its  ranks  of  a  portion  of  the  bourgeoisie. 
He  will  recall,  too,  how,  long  years  after 
his  difference  with  Ernest  Jones  upon  this 
question,  Marx  wisely  availed  himself  of  the 
aid  of  many  who,  while  not  proletarians, 
served  the  proletarian  cause,  through  the 
"  International,"  with  ability  and  devotion. 
In  a  word,  the  best  corrective  of  that 
crude,  immature,  and  sterile  "  Marxism " 
which  tends  everywhere  and  always  to  bind 
the  movement  to  the  limitations  of  a  mere 
sect,  is  a  sympathetic  and  thorough  study  of 
the  life  of  Marx.  We  cannot  hope  other- 
wise to  be  able  to  distinguish  between  the 
pure  gold  of  Marxian  teaching  and  the  base 
metal  tendered  by  self-styled  "  Marxists." 
We  must  avoid  the  mischievous  error  of 
holding    Marx   responsible    for   the    foolish 

[32] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

vagaries  of  many  noisy  and  narrow  dogma- 
tists who  claim  to  speak  in  his  name.  Un- 
happily, there  is  always  a  tendency  for  the 
revolt  against  that  which  these  dogmatists 
have  named  "  orthodox  Marxism  "  to  lead 
to  a  more  or  less  contemptuous  and  hostile 
attitude  toward  Marx.  In  the  present  stage 
of  our  development,  we  need  above  every- 
thing to  guard  against  this  too  common 
error.  We  need  to  return  to  Marx,  not  to 
abandon  him. 


[33] 


IV 


WHILE  Marx  was  still  alive,  and  de- 
voting his  tremendous  energies  to  the 
task  of  frustrating  the  Franco-Rus- 
sian Intrigues  in  Southern  Europe,  in  1858- 
1859,  an  unscrupulous  enemy  published  an 
infamous  attack  upon  him,  a  malignant  cari- 
cature which,  though  easily  and  abundantly 
discredited  by  Marx  himself,  has  greatly  in- 
fluenced the  popular  conception  of  the  great 
Socialist's  personality. 

According  to  this  caricature,  Marx  was 
a  monster  of  depravity,  an  inhuman  fiend. 
Marx  was  an  autocrat,  a  dictator,  a  calum- 
niator of  his  friends,  a  man  utterly  void  of 
honor,  corrupt  and  venal,  living  in  luxury 
at  the  expense  of  the  poor  toilers  who  trusted 
him.  Worse  than  all  these  things,  he  was 
the  chief  ogre  of  a  fiendish  conspiratory 
organization,    the    Brimstone   League.     The 

[34] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

business  of  this  secret  society  was  to  plan 
and  carry  out  insurrections  and  assassina- 
tions. Its  members  were  pledged  by  a  ter- 
rible, blood-curdling  oath,  devised  by  Marx 
They  were  also  compelled  to  learn  a  ciphef 
language,  likewise  devised  by  Marx,  and  in 
which  he  had  written  a  book  Instructing  them 
in  the  arts  of  arson  and  assassination.  In 
brief,  the  Marx  described  In  this  caricature 
was  an  utterly  loathsome,  bloodthirsty  and 
Inhuman  monster. 

How  different  was  the  real  Marx!  We 
go  back  to  1859,  the  time  when  this  Infa- 
mous story  was  concocted:  we  can  see  Marx 
almost  any  morning,  walking  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  his  modest  home  on  Grafton 
Terrace.  A  heavily  built  man,  square  shoul- 
dered, well  above  the  average  height,  with 
a  massive,  leonine  head  covered  with  a  thick 
mass  of  hair,  once  raven  black  but  now 
plentifully  shot  with  gray.  His  complexion 
Is  peculiar:  naturally  swarthy.  It  has  yet  the 
pallid  hue  that  comes  from  ill-health,  over- 
strain, and  much  servitude  to  the  midnight 

[35] 


Sidelights    on    Conte7npora^y    Socialism 

oil.  An  immense,  thick,  bushy  beard  sur- 
rounds his  face.  Like  the  hair  of  the  head 
it  was  once  black,  but  is  now  grayer  than  it 
should  be  at  forty-one.  Only  the  mustache 
retains  its  original  blackness  unimpaired,  and 
this  adds  a  touch  of  peculiarity  to  his  ap- 
pearance. 

He  is  the  center  of  a  group  of  laughing, 
shouting,  happy  children,  who  cling  to  his 
person  and  dress  and  impede  his  progress. 
His  countenance  is  beaming  with  laughter, 
and  the  neighbors  greet  him  with  friendly 
smiles  and  nods.  Surely,  this  is  not  Marx 
the  monster,  the  ghoul,  of  whom  we  have 
heard  so  much!  This  man  is  not  to  be 
shunned  or  feared.  The  friend  of  the  chil- 
dren is  a  man  to  be  trusted  and  loved. 

Could  we  follow  him  into  his  home  and 
watch  him  in  the  midst  of  his  family,  our 
trust  in  him  would  not  be  shaken.  The  home 
is  plainly,  poorly  furnished.  Not  a  sign 
of  luxury  appears,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
everything  speaks  of  a  long-continued  strug- 

[36] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

gle  of  respectability  against  poverty.  Even 
the  wretched,  tinkling  piano,  at  which  two 
young  girls  are  practicing  a  duet,  accentuates 
rather  than  disguises  the  poverty.  The  pride 
of  the  man  in  his  charming  wife  and  three 
girls,  the  oldest  fifteen,  the  youngest  three, 
and  his  tender  affection  for  them,  are  appar- 
ent. And  their  every  look  shows  plainly 
how  wife  and  daughters  worship  him. 

So  much,  even  the  casual  visitor  to  the 
Marx  home  might  see  at  any  time.  It  was 
only  the  intimate  friend  and  trusted  comrade, 
privileged  to  enter  without  ceremony  at  any 
time,  who  was  ever  fortunate  enough  to  sur- 
prise the  husband  and  wife,  sweethearts  still, 
marching  up  and  down  the  room,  arm  in  arm, 
singing  tender  love  songs  In  the  tongue  of 
the  Fatherland,  just  as  they  probably  did 
among  the  old  Roman  ruins  at  Trier  In  their 
courtship  days.  When  caught  thus,  they 
were  as  abashed  and  shy  as  If  they  were  still 
In  their  teens.  Such  pictures  of  his  gentle- 
ness and  tenderness  toward  children,  and  of 

[37] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

his  beautiful  devotion  to  his  wife,  make  it 
impossible  to  believe  that  the  man  is  the 
ogre  we  have  been  asked  to  believe  him  to 
be. 

It  is  true  that  there  was  another,  less 
lovely,  side  to  his  character.  Marx  the  revo- 
lutionist, the  political  leader,  was  not  always 
an  amiable  person.  That  is  evident  from 
the  sneering,  contemptuous  curl  of  the  lips 
which  is  seen  in  his  best  portraits.  These 
give  the  impression  of  a  domineering,  asser- 
tive man,  tempestuous,  scornful,  perhaps  vain 
at  times,  and  exceedingly  apt  to  be  irascible 
and  vindictive.  The  story  of  his  stormy 
political  career  bears  out  this  impression  of 
the  man.  It  is  the  story  of  a  long  series  of 
rancorous  quarrels,  bitter  controversies,  and 
broken  friendships.  He  quarreled  with  Ar- 
nold Ruge,  Georg  Herwegh,  Wilhelm  Weit- 
ling,  Pierre  J.  Proudhon,  Michael  Bakunin, 
Alexander  Herzen,  Karl  Heinzen,  Gottfried 
Kinkel,  Giuseppe  Mazzini,  Herman  Jung, 
and  even  with  Ferdinand  Lassalle  and  Wil- 
helm Liebknecht.     In  the  light  of  this  list, 

[38] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

his  friendship  for  Engels,  which  lasted  for 
practically  forty  years,  unclouded  by  a  single 
quarrel  or  misunderstanding,  seems  all  the 
more  remarkable. 


[39] 


HAVING  said  so  much,  justice  demands 
that  we  recognize  some  important 
facts  and  set  them  down  to  the  credit 
of  Marx.  The  first  is  that  the  temptations 
of  a  hfe  so  largely  given  to  controversy 
hardly  ever  induced  him  to  resort  to  such  dis- 
honorable methods  of  attack  as  he  was  often 
the  victim  of.  He  might  be  abusive,  even  to 
the  point  of  vulgarity,  unjust,  or  relentless 
to  the  point  of  brutality,  but  he  was  careful 
to  avoid  anything  like  intentional  misrepre- 
sentation or  falsehood.  He  fought  bitterly, 
but  bravely  and  with  a  strict  observance  of 
the  rules  of  honorable  conflict. 

The  exception  to  this  rule,  almost  the  only 
one,  so  far  as  I  recall,  was  his  use  of  an  in- 
famous charge  which  he  knew  to  be  false 
and  baseless,  during  his  bitter  strife  with 
Bakunin.     Although   he   knew   that   his   ad- 

[40] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

versary  had  amply  proved  his  innocence  of 
the  charge  that  he  was  a  spy  in  the  employ 
of  the  Russian  government,  Marx  stooped  so 
low  as  to  use  it.  The  fact  that  Bakunin  had 
availed  himself  of  equally  dishonorable  weap- 
ons does  not  hide  the  stain  upon  Marx's 
record. 

The  second  fact  which  we  must  perforce 
consider  is  that  Marx  never  betrayed  a  trust. 
He  demanded  absolute  loyalty  from  his  asso- 
ciates, and  in  turn  he  gave  absolute  loyalty  to 
his  associates.  Whatever  might  happen,  he 
would  not  betray  a  confidence.  Men  who 
were  intimately  associated  with  him  in  early 
life,  but  afterwards  became  identified  with 
what  Marx  regarded  as  the  forces  of  reaction, 
marveled  greatly  that  Marx  never  betrayed 
their  earlier  confidences,  though  he  might 
have  gained  temporary  advantages  by  so  do- 
ing. 

Finally,  we  must  consider  the  fact  that  his 
quarrels  were  rarely  due  to  personal  pique 
or  injured  vanity.  It  is  true  that  offended 
vanity  led  him  to  complain  of  Lassalle,  and 

[41] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

of  Mr.  Hyndman,  the  English  Soclahst  who 
first  expounded  his  theories  in  Enghsh.  He 
felt  that  he  was  given  too  little  credit.  But 
his  quarrels  were  almost  invariably  due  to 
vital  and  fundamental  differences  of  opinion 
upon  questions  relating  to  the  policy  and 
tactics  of  the  movement.  Even  though  he 
felt  keenly  the  severance  of  valued  personal 
ties,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice  the  dearest 
friendships  by  bitterly  attacking  principles 
which  seemed  to  him  to  be  opposed  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  movement. 

In  view  of  the  reputation  he  still  has  of 
having  been  a  fomenter  of  violence  and 
bloody  revolt,  it  is  somewhat  remarkable  that 
most  of  his  quarrels  with  associates  arose 
from  his  opposition  to  just  such  methods,  and 
his  determined  insistence  upon  the  methods 
of  peaceful  evolution.  It  was  his  opposition 
to  a  mad  scheme  for  the  invasion  of  Ger- 
many by  an  armed  legion  in  1848,  proposed 
by  Herwegh,  which  made  that  fiery  poet  his 
lifelong  foe.  It  was  his  opposition  to  a  like 
scheme  in  1862  which  ended  his  friendship 

[42] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

with  Lassalle.  Weitling,  Bakunin,  Herzen, 
MazzinI  and  Klnkel  all  became  his  enemies 
because  of  his  opposition  to  the  various  insur- 
rectionary methods  and  plans  they  pro- 
posed. 

Marx  was  intolerant,  even  to  the  point  of 
actual  fanaticism.  Had  he  greater  genius 
for  political  leadership,  he  might  have  con- 
vinced his  associates  and  brought  them  over 
to  his  views,  instead  of  violently  quarreling 
with  them.  That  fact,  however,  must  not 
be  permitted  to  obscure  his  devotion  to  the 
idea  of  peaceful  evolution.  He  was  fond  of 
the  phrase,  "  revolutionary  evolution,"  which 
admirably  describes  his  point  of  view. 
When,  in  1850,  he  resigned  from  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  Communist  Alliance,  in 
London,  which  was  then  dominated  by  Kin- 
kel  and  other  impatient  hot-heads,  he  rebuked 
these  because  they  substituted  revolutionary 
phrases  for  the  idea  of  revolutionary  evolu- 
tion, and  declared  that  it  would  take  the 
workers  many  years,  not  to  change  the  social 
system,  but  to  change  themselves  and  make 

[43] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

themselves  worthy  of  pozver!  And  this  is 
the  man  whose  name  Is  still  frequently  asso- 
ciated with  the  Ideas  of  Insurrection,  rapine 
and  murder  I 


[44] 


VI 


THERE  are  numerous  critics  of  small 
minds  who  are  Incapable  of  setting  the 
logic  of  a  great  thinker's  life,  and  of 
his  thought  as  a  whole,  above  the  occasional, 
incidental  utterances  born  of  exceptional  con- 
ditions. A  wise  man  takes  such  utterances, 
weighs  them,  and  soon  discovers  that  their 
only  value  Is  that  they  Indicate  transient 
moods,  which,  however  interesting  they  may 
be  in  themselves,  must  be  held  to  be  subor- 
dinate to  the  thinker's  life  and  thought  as  a 
whole.  But  let  the  critic  of  small  mind  dis- 
cover such  utterances,  and  he  will  at  once 
Insist  that  the  Isolated  text  is  the  real  basis 
for  judging  a  man's  thought. 

If  he  is  seeking  a  great  thinker's  sanction 
for  a  pet  theory,  and  finds  a  single  text  to 
satisfy  his  desire,  that  text  becomes  the 
quintessence     of    the    great    thinker's    best 

[45] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

thought  upon  the  subject.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  is  a  mere  intellectual  buzzard  seek- 
ing prey,  one  of  those  who  read  not  to  weigh 
and  consider,  but  to  contradict  and  confute, 
a  single  text  upon  which  an  attack  can  be 
based  becomes  the  quintessence  of  the  think- 
er's thought  and  purpose.  All  the  rest  of  his 
work  which  is  opposed  to  the  text  is  to  be 
dismissed  as  inconsistent,  and,  very  generally 
in  the  case  of  such  thinkers  as  Marx,  as  an 
evidence  of  insincerity  and  deception. 

Few  modern  thinkers  have  suffered  more 
at  the  hands  of  both  classes  of  text  hunters 
than  Marx.  There  is  a  very  wholesome 
French  saying  to  the  effect  that  In  all  re- 
search we  must  be  careful  how  we  search, 
lest  we  find  that  for  which  we  look.  Win- 
nowing the  books,  letters  and  speeches  of 
any  great  thinker,  especially  if  his  Hfe  was 
given  largely  to  political  controversy  and 
struggle,  as  was  that  of  Marx,  will  disclose 
some  statements  which  are  not  consistent  with 
each  other. 

To  this  rule  Marx  was  no  exception.     A 

[46] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

candid  study  of  his  life  and  work  reveals  that 
he  had  his  full  share  of  inconsistencies.  But 
sometimes  the  inconsistencies  are  more  ap- 
parent than  real.  In  some  cases,  for  example, 
the  apostle  of  revolutionary  evolution  laid  so 
much  stress  upon  the  revolutionary  character 
of  his  thought  that  the  idea  of  evolution 
seemed  to  be  lost  sight  of  altogether.  At 
other  times  his  emphasis  upon  the  evolution- 
ary side  obscured  the  revolutionary  side. 
There  are  sayings  of  his  which,  taken  by 
themselves,  indicate  that  Marx  believed  in 
a  sudden  revolution  of  society,  a  great  cata- 
clysmic upheaval  of  the  old  order  and  the 
immediate  appearance  of  the  new.  But 
such  sayings  cannot  be  justly  "  taken  by 
themselves."  If  we  are  to  understand  Marx, 
either  as  advocates  or  antagonists,  we  must 
consider,  not  isolated  utterances,  but  the  logic 
and  spirit  of  the  whole  body  of  his  teaching. 
And  no  one  can  approach  the  study  of  Marx 
in  that  spirit  without  realizing  that  his  best 
thought  rejected  the  notion  of  a  sudden  social 
transformation   due  to  a  coup  d'etat  or  an 

[47] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

insurrection.  The  idea  is  as  repugnant  to 
his  theory  of  social  development  as  that  of 
gradual  change,  revolutionary  evolution,  is 
fundamental  to  it. 


[48] 


VII 

ARX  himself  regarded  Das  Kapital  as 
his  greatest  achievement,  and  most  of 
his  disciples  have  agreed  with  him. 
That  it  is  a  very  great  achievement  there 
can  be  no  sensible  doubt.  A  ponderous  and 
difficult  work  on  political  economy,  consisting 
of  something  like  twenty-five  hundred  closely 
printed  large  octavo  pages,  it  has  been  pain- 
fully and  conscientiously  studied  by  thousands 
of  humble  laborers.  It  has  been  regarded 
by  many  of  Marx's  followers  exactly  as  the 
Bible  is  regarded  by  many  Christians,  as  an 
infallible  book.  Das  Kapital  is  distinctly  one 
of  the  masterpieces  of  the  world's  economic 
literature,  to  be  ranked  with  the  works  of 
Adam  Smith,  David  RIcardo  and  John  Stuart 
Mill. 

Still,  admitting  all  that,  I  venture  to  say 
that,   fifty  years  hence,   the   fame   of   Marj? 

[49] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

will  not  rest  upon  his  work  as  a  political 
economist.  While  Das  Kapital  must  always 
take  rank  with  such  works  as  The  Wealth  of 
Nations,  it  is  by  no  means  his  greatest 
achievement.  Far  more  Important,  it  seems 
to  me,  Is  his  work  as  a  sociologist,  his  dis- 
covery and  exposition  of  the  fundamental 
law  of  social  progress.  Without  minimizing 
the  Importance  of  his  theory  of  surplus  value, 
It  can  be  said  with  confidence  that  his  so- 
called  materialistic  conception  of  history  is 
of  far  greater  Importance  and  value.  It  Is 
in  reahty  the  foundation  of  Marxism,  and 
upon  It,  rather  than  upon  his  economic  theo- 
ries, rests  whatever  claim  Marx  has  to  a 
place  in  history  with  Darwin  and  Spencer. 

Oddly  enough,  this,  the  most  important  of 
Marxian  theories.  Is  also  the  most  misrepre- 
sented, possibly  because  it  Is  the  least  under- 
stood. Misrepresentation  of  It  by  Socialists 
who  call  themselves  "  Marxists  "  Is  hardly 
less  serious  or  common  than  by  the  bitterest 
enemies  of  the  Socialist  movement.  Exag- 
gerated statements  and  crude  Interpretations 

[50] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

of  the  theory  have  done  much  to  discredit 
it,  and  to  prejudice  thoughtful  minds  against 
Marx  and  all  his  teachings. 

It  is  impossible  to  enter  here  upon  an  elabo- 
rate exposition  of  the  theory.^  All  that  is 
possible  is  to  give  a  brief  and  bald  summary 
of  its  cardinal  principles.  Such  a  summary 
we  have  in  the  words  spoken  by  Engels,  in 
Highgate  Cemetery,  at  the  funeral  of  Marx: 

"  The  production  of  the  material  means 
of  life,  and  the  corresponding  stage  of  eco- 
nomic evolution,  of  a  nation  or  epoch  form 
the  foundation  from  which  the  civil  institu- 
tions of  the  people  in  question,  their  ideas  of 
law,  of  art,  of  religion  even,  have  been  de- 
veloped, and  according  to  which  they  are  to 
be  explained  —  and  not  the  reverse  as  has 
been  done  heretofore." 

As  a  summary,  this  concise  statement  is 
admirable,  and  it  has  not  been  improved 
upon  by  any  of  the  host  of  writers  who  have 

^  For  such  an  exposition,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
an  earlier  work  by  the  present  writer,  Socialism,  a  Sum- 
viary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Principles  (Re- 
vised Edition,  1909). 

[51] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

succeeded  Engels.  Its  meaning  is  perfectly 
plain  and  simple:  it  means  that,  in  the  last 
analysis,  our  social  relations  are,  in  the  main, 
determined  by  our  economic  relations;  that 
fundamental  changes  in  the  methods  of  pro- 
ducing and  distributing  wealth,  sooner  or 
later  necessitate  and  cause  changes  in  the 
organization  of  society,  destroying  old  cus- 
toms and  institutions  and  bringing  new  ones 
into  existence;  that  changes  so  profound,  af- 
fecting all  our  material  environment,  influence 
the  whole  of  life,  our  ideas  of  law,  of  ethics, 
of  art,  and  even  of  religion.  In  a  word,  it 
means  that  the  main  determining  force  in 
social  evolution  is  the  growth  of  economic 
power  and  efficiency;  that  all  intellectual 
and  spiritual  progress  is  ultimately  dependent 
upon  economic  development. 

So  thoroughly  has  this  conception  of  social 
development  been  accepted  by  the  scholar- 
ship of  the  time,  that  It  has  become  a  com- 
monplace, and  Marx  appears  to  the  present- 
day  student  who  encounters  his  work  for  the 
first   time   as   a    discoverer   of   the   obvious. 

[52] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

The  man  who  does  not  see  that  the  great 
economic  changes  involved  in  the  break-up 
of  feudal  society,  and  the  rise  and  develop- 
ment of  the  era  of  capitalism,  resulted  in 
social  and  political  changes  of  vast  magni- 
tude, and  In  the  development  of  laws,  cus- 
toms and  Institutions  peculiar  and  essential 
to  the  new  epoch,  is  mentally  blind.  He  has 
not  yet  discovered  the  obvious ! 

It  Is  unfortunate  that  Marx  never  de- 
veloped this  important  theory  with  the  elab- 
orate care  and  thoroughness  with  which  he 
developed  his  economic  theories.  It  runs 
through  all  his  work,  like  a  thread,  from 
the  Communist  Manifesto,  written  in  1847, 
to  Das  Kapital.  It  Is  the  foundation  upon 
which  the  superstructure  of  his  whole  sys- 
tem of  thought  rests.  But  there  Is  often  a 
notable  lack  of  that  patient,  thorough  analy- 
sis and  argument  which  we  associate  with 
the  name  Marx.  And  there  is  always  the 
danger  that  the  over-emphasis  due  to  the 
controversial  temper  in  which  he  stated  the 
theory  may  mislead  us. 

[53] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

In  a  letter  written  to  a  student  of  Social- 
ism in  1890,  and  published  shortly  after  his 
death, ^  Engels  frankly  explained  that  Marx 
and  himself  were  partly  responsible  for  the 
fact  that  too  much  had  been  claimed  for  the 
influence  of  the  economic  forces  in  social 
development  —  that  the  influence  of  other 
factors  had  sometimes  been  sweepingly  denied. 
He  explained  that  in  meeting  the  attacks  of 
their  opponents  Marx  and  himself  had  been 
under  the  necessity  of  emphasizing  the  dom- 
inant influence  of  economic  conditions,  and 
that  they  did  not  always  have  the  time  or 
opportunity  "  to  let  the  other  factors,  which 
were  concerned  in  the  mutual  action  and  re- 
action, get  their  deserts." 

There  is  a  world  of  meaning  in  the  phrase 
"  mutual  action  and  reaction."  What  he 
meant  by  it  may  be  plainly  seen  from  an- 
other letter  on  the  subject,  in  which  he  says 
that  those  followers  of  Marx  and  himself 
who  interpret  the  doctrine  to  mean  that  the 
economic   factor   is  the   sole   determinant  of 

1  In  the  Socialistische  Akadeniiker,  1895. 

[54] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 


historical  development  convert  it  into  a 
*'  meaningless,  abstract,  absurd  phrase." 
In  the  same  letter  he  shows  how  "  the  politi- 
cal, legal,  philosophical  theories,  and  religious 
views  .  .  .  exert  an  influence  on  the  de- 
velopment of  the  historical  struggle,  and  in 
many  instances  determine  their  form."  ^ 

It  is  well  that  we  have  the  words  of  the 
masters  with  which  to  confute  and  rebuke 
those  of  their  disciples  who,  their  zeal  far 
exceeding  their  knowledge,  interpret  the 
theory  to  mean  that  the  only  power  at  work 
in  human  evolution  is  that  of  economic  In- 
terest, that  ideals,  patriotism,  religion  and 
love  have  had  no  Influence  at  all,  and  that 
even  the  conduct  of  the  individual  is  wholly 
shaped  by  his  material  interests.  Such 
views  are  "  not  only  pedantic  but  ridiculous," 
to  quote  Engels  once  more;  they  are  exceed- 
ingly dangerous  to  the  movement  because  of 
the  demagogic  agitation  which  springs  from 
them.  To  such  perversions  of  a  great  the- 
ory, more  than  to  any  other  cause,  is  due 

1  Idem. 

I  SSI 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

that  sinister  effort  to  exclude  from  the  So- 
ciaHst  ranks  all  who  are  not  actual  prole- 
tarians, and  the  hatred  and  distrust  of  intel- 
lectual leadership  reflected  in  the  constant 
agitation  against  the  "  Intellectuals,"  agi- 
tation which  would,  were  it  to  succeed,  rob 
the  working-class  movement  of  an  element 
of  strength  without  which  it  must  assuredly 
fail. 


[56] 


VIII 

AFTER  all,  the  life  of  Marx  affords  the 
best  and  most  conclusive  reply  to  those 
narrow  dogmatists  who  proclaim  that 
ideals  count  for  nothing,  and  that  men  never 
respond  to  any  motives  higher  than  the  de- 
sire for  material  gain.  For  Marx  was  es- 
sentially an  idealist.  For  the  sake  of  a  cher- 
ished ideal  he  suffered  a  life  of  martyrdom. 
Does  anybody  in  his  senses  believe  that  the 
man  who  suffered  hunger  and  lived  in  a  mean 
tenement,  and  who  was  grateful  for  the 
warmth  afforded  by  the  reading  room  of  the 
British  Museum,  though  he  was  often  too 
hungry  to  study,  was  inspired  by  nothing 
higher  than  his  material  interest?  Was  it 
that  or  some  nobler  ideal,  some  unselfish 
passion,  which  led  him  to  spurn  the  subtle 
temptations  of  a  Bismarck  offering  a  life  of 
ease  and  luxury  in  exchange  for  services  in- 

[57] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

finitely  less  arduous  than  those  he  bestowed 
upon  the  working-class  movement? 

We  shall  utterly  fail  to  understand  the  life 
of  Marx,  and  much  of  his  profoundest 
thought  will  have  no  significance  for  us,  if 
we  do  not  pay  just  attention  to  the  spiritual 
side  of  his  nature.  Contrary  to  the  opinion 
which  generally  prevails,  even  among  his 
Socialist  followers,  that  side  of  Marx's  na- 
ture was  highly  developed.  A  pronounced 
atheist,  he  was  not  and  could  not  be  reli- 
gious in  the  ordinary,  accepted  sense  of  that 
term.  But  in  the  larger  sense  of  the  word 
he  was  religious.  Socialism  was  a  religion 
to  him,  and  the  heroic  and  unselfish  devotion 
.  with  which  he  worked  was  the  manifestation 
of  a  nature  essentially  and  intensely  spiritual. 
Marx  was  a  prophet  quite  as  truly  as 
Isaiah,  Amos,  Joel  and  Micah  were  prophets. 
He  proclaimed  the  economic  emancipation 
of  mankind.  With  magnificent  faith  and 
courage  he  appealed  to  the, workers  of  the 
world,  inspiring  them  with  his  own  belief 
that  they  were   destined  by  the   inexorable 

[58] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

laws  of  evolution  to  banish  poverty  from  the 
world,  to  put  an  end  to  the  warfare  of  na- 
tions and  of  classes,  and  so  make  the  great 
ages-old  dream  of  universal  brotherhood  a 
reality.  After  all,  his  vision  of  a  social 
order  rooted  in  justice  and  equality  of  op- 
portunity, and  blossoming  forth  into  the  joy 
and  peace  of  fellowship  and  brotherhood, 
was  not  materially  different  from  that  social 
vision  which  the  great  Hebrew  prophets 
called  "  The  Kingdom  of  God  on  Earth." 

We  who  call  ourselves  disciples  of  Marx 
are  unfortunately  prone  to  forget  the  ulti- 
mate spiritual  meaning  of  our  movement. 
Marx  never  lost  sight  of  that.  True,  he 
proclaimed  the  inevitability  of  the  class  strug- 
gle as  a  fact  of  social  evolution,  and  urged 
the  working  people  of  all  countries  to  unite 
in  order  that  they  might  fight  the  master 
class  successfully.  But  his  thought  went  far 
deeper  than  that.  He  never  forgot  that  the 
object  of  the  victory  thus  secured  was  not 
to  make  the  workers  rulers  of  the  class  to 
which  they  had  been  subject,  but  to  put  an 

[59] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

end  to  all  class  rule  forever,  by  ending  the 
conditions  which  make  class  divisions  pos- 
sible in  society.  Thus  will  human  fellowship 
be  made  possible. 

He  bitterly  assailed  economic  servitude, 
and  fought  for  the  emancipation  of  the  world 
from  material  poverty,  misery  and  oppres- 
sion. But  that  was  his  immediate  aim,  not 
his  ultimate  goal.  He  was  too  big  a  man, 
too  profound  a  thinker  to  look  upon  the  gain 
of  material  comfort  and  plenty  as  an  end  in 
itself.  He  realized  that  the  spiritual  life  of 
man  depends  upon  the  physical  life,  and  that 
the  highest  development  of  the  spiritual  life 
can  only  be  made  possible  through  the  high- 
est development  of  the  material  life,  of  which 
it  is  the  flower.  He  knew  only  too  well 
that  the  chains  which  bind  the  body  captive 
bind  also  the  soul,  and  that  the  liberation 
of  the  soul  can  only  be  accomplished  by 
breaking  the  chains  that  bind  the  body. 

A  personal  experience  may  serve  to  Illus- 
trate how  some  of  the  followers  of  Marx 
lose  sight  of  the  ultimate  goal  in  the  midst 

[60] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

of  their  struggles  to  attain  the  immediate 
aims  we  have  formulated  in  our  programmes. 
Some  time  ago  I  was  announced  to  lecture 
on  *'  The  Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern 
Socialism."  ^  No  sooner  was  the  subject  an- 
nounced than  it  was  severely  criticized  by 
some  narrow  dogmatists  in  our  movement, 
even  before  the  lecture  was  delivered.  They 
rebuked  me  for  my  departure  from  the 
straight  paths  of  Marxism,  and  denounced 
the  title  of  the  lecture  as  a  serious  heresy. 

They  did  not  know  that  the  title  had  been 
directly  inspired  by  a  re-reading  of  that  fine 
inaugural  address  which  Marx  wrote  for 
the  International  Workingmen's  Association, 
in  which  capitalism  is  condemned  because  it 
leads  to  the  "  spiritual  degradation  "  of  the 
workers.  No  one  can  read  that  splendid 
document  with  an  open  mind  and  fail  to  real- 
ize that  Marx  attached  a  great  and  vital 
spiritual  significance  to  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. 

1  The    Spiritual    SigniUcance   of   Modern    Socialism. 
New  York,  1908. 

[61] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Marx  the  philosopher  and  economist  in- 
spires and  compels  admiration.  And,  de- 
spite his  occasional  petulance,  and  the  domi- 
neering and  intolerant  spirit  he  sometimes 
displayed  toward  other  leaders  of  the  radical 
movement,  there  is  much  to  admire  in  his 
political  life,  especially  his  great  courage  and 
unflagging  zeal.  But  it  is  only  when  we  turn 
from  contemplation  of  the  philosopher  and 
politician  and  consider  his  beautiful  and  ten- 
der devotion  to  his  wife,  and  his  passionate 
love  for  children,  that  we  begin  to  feel  any- 
thing like  that  affection  which  Lincoln  in- 
spired In  the  hearts  of  the  people.  As  we 
get  to  know  more  of  his  life,  and  the  calum- 
nies which  have  obscured  his  real  character 
from  our  view  are  dissipated,  we  shall  find 
our  admiration  for  Marx  deepening  Into  af- 
fection, and  we  shall  love  him  for  what  he 
was  In  his  person  as  much  as  we  honor  him 
for  his  greatness  of  Intellect. 

Personally,  I  love  to  think  of  the  Marx 
whose  youthful  dream  and  ambition  was  to  be 
the  great  poet  of  his  country,   whose  love 

[62] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

for  Jenny  von  Westphalen  found  expression 
in  lyrical  outbursts,  which,  if  they  are  not 
great  poetry,  prove  that  he  felt  the  divine 
fire.  I  love  to  think  that  throughout  his 
tempestuous  career  he  enjoyed  the  friendship 
of  great  poets  like  Freiligrath  and  Heine, 
and  that  they  recognized  his  kinship  with 
themselves.  Finally,  I  love  to  think  of  him 
as  a  faithful  student  and  lover  of  Dante, 
turning  to  the  great  Florentine's  immortal 
masterpiece,  the  Divine  Comedy,  for  inspi- 
ration throughout  his  life. 

This  spiritual  figure  is  the  real  "Marx,  the 
poet,  philosopher  and  prophet  whose  achieve- 
ments and  services  to  mankind  must  be 
counted  among  the  greatest  of  the  glories  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  So  long  as  we  neg- 
lect Marx  the  poet  and  prophet,  Marx  the 
philosopher  will  be  only  half  revealed  to 
us,  a  dim  figure  wrapped  in  impenetrable 
shadows.  Surely,  it  is  not  too  much  to  hope 
that  we  shall  pay  increasing  attention  to 
Marx's  life  as  the  surest  and  safest  guide  to 
the    essential    meaning    of    his    written    and 

[  63  ] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

spoken  word.  For  his  is  the  greatest  name 
in  our  annals:  he  kindled  a  beacon  fire  upon 
the  hills  of  Time  to  guide  the  faltering  feet 
of  Humanity  in  its  pilgrimage  to  the 
Promised  Land. 


[64] 


II 

ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM    IN    THE 

SOCIALIST  MOVEMENT:  A 

HISTORICAL  SURVEY 


FROM  time  to  time  the  Socialist  move- 
ment —  especially  in  its  formative 
stages  —  is  disturbed  by  agitation  di- 
rected against  the  relatively  small  body  of 
trained  thinkers  and  scholars  who  devote  their 
gifts  of  superior  ability,  education  and  train- 
ing to  the  Socialist  cause.  These  "  intellec- 
tuals "  are,  naturally,  mainly  recruited  from 
the  privileged  classes.  They  are  not  them- 
selves proletarians.  With  few  exceptions, 
they  either  Belong  to  that  section  of  the  ruling 
class  which  finds  its  existence  menaced  by  the 
development  of  the  great  trusts,  and  so  cast 
their  lot  with  the  proletariat,  or  to  that  small 
minority  of  idealists  in  the  ruling  class,  who, 
in  the  words  of  Marx,  "  have  raised  them- 
selves to  the  level  of  comprehending  theo- 
retically    the     historical     movements     as     a 

[67] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

whole."  ^  In  either  case,  they  constitute  a 
most  important  part  of  the  SociaHst  move- 
ment. To  quote  Marx  again,  "  they  supply 
the  proletariat  with  fresh  elements  of  en- 
lightenment and  progress."  - 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  here  that  these 
"  intellectuals  "  have  rendered  the  Socialist 
movement  service  of  incalculable  value. 
They  have  furnished  it  with  most  of  its  phi- 
losophers, economists,  orators,  artists,  poets 
and  political  leaders.  If  we  take  the  great 
struggles  out  of  which  the  present  movement 
has  emerged,  such  as,  for  example,  the  strug- 
gles in  which  Marx  and  Bakunin  were  the 
leaders,  or  the  literature  of  the  movement, 
it  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  that  there 
could  have  been  a  Socialist  movement  or  a 
Socialist  literature  at  all  but  for  the  "  intel- 
lectuals." Just  think  what  the  Socialist 
movement  and  its  literature  would  have  been 
without  the  work  of  Marx,  Engels,  Lassalle, 
De    Paepe,    Vailliant,     Kautsky,     Mehring, 

1  The  Communist  Manifesto. 

2  Idem. 

[68] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Jaures,  Vandervelde,  Larbriola,  Hyndman, 
Lafargue  and  Bax,  in  Europe,  and  Gron- 
lund,  HlUquIt,  and  many  others  in  America ! 
Yet  these  are  but  a  few  names  taken  at 
random  almost  from  the  multitude  that 
crowd  the  memory. 

At  all  stages  of  its  development  the  move- 
ment has  depended  largely  upon  its  "  intellec- 
tuals." They  have  given  voice  to  the  "  un- 
learned discontent "  of  the  despoiled  and 
disinherited;  they  have  formulated  pro- 
grammes for  the  movement,  explained  them 
to  the  masses,  and  defended  them  against  the 
assaults  of  the  trained  and  skilled  intellec- 
tual retainers  of  the  ruling  class. 

It  is  to  the  "  intellectuals  "  that  the  pro- 
letariat owes  whatever  understanding  it  has 
of  its  position  in  social  evolution,  its  mission 
and  its  opportunity.  It  required  the  learning 
and  genius  of  an  intellectual  giant  like  Marx 
to  comprehend  the  complex  process  of  social 
development  and  formulate  the  theory  of  the 
class  struggle.  No  proletarian,  engaged  in 
manual  work,  could  have  done  it.     Thus,  the 

[69] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

"  Intellectual  "  was  necessary  to  the  working 
class  movement  for  the  achievement  of  its 
first  great  task,  namely,  the  elevation  of  its 
blind  class  instinct  into  an  enlightened  class 
consciousness.  They  who  in  the  name  of 
proletarian  class  consciousness  hurl  their  glib 
phrases  at  the  "  intellectuals  "  in  the  move- 
ment, to  tell  them  they  are  uninvited  inter- 
lopers, would  never  have  had  the  phrases  to 
use  but  for  the  "  intellectuals  "  who  coined 
them  and,  by  sheer  force  of  intellect,  gave 
them  currency. 

Anti-Intellectualism  is  a  curious  phenom- 
enon. In  view  of  the  loyal  and  efficient 
service  which  the  "  Intellectuals  "  have  ren- 
dered the  Socialist  cause.  It  would  be  natural 
to  expect  that  every  honest  and  sincere  pro- 
letarian Socialist,  realizing  how  easily  the 
"  Intellectuals "  could  command  rich  re- 
muneration for  much  less  service  to  the 
master  class,  would  regard  them  with  especial 
honor  and  respect.  It  would  be  natural  to 
expect  that  the  devotion  of  all  sincere  pro- 
letarian  Socialists  to   their  cause   would  be 

[70] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

enough  to  safeguard  the  movement  against 
any  demagogic  attempt  to  instill  Into  their 
minds  distrust  and  suspicion  and  hatred  of 
their  better-educated  comrades. 


[71I 


II 


YET,  the  fact  remains  that,  almost  from 
its  inception,  the  international  Socialist 
movement  has  been  infested  with  the 
evil  spirit  of  anti-intellectualism.  Generally, 
it  has  been  a  factional  movement,  fostered  by 
petty,  ambitious  intriguers,  aspirants  to  lead- 
ership devoid  of  the  requisite  intellectual 
equipment  and  training.  Finding  their  am- 
bitions blocked  by  the  leadership  of  better 
educated  and  more  intelligent  leaders,  they 
have  tried  to  create  antagonism  between  the 
proletarians  and  the  "  intellectuals." 

Unfortunately,  it  is  never  difficult  for  a 
cunning  and  unscrupulous  demagogue  to  do 
this  with  a  considerable  amount  of  success. 
"  Has  not  Marx  himself  taught  us  to  believe 
that  the  working  class  must  achieve  its  own 
emancipation?  Very  well,  then,  why  should 
you  proletarians,  whose  brains  are  as  keen 

[72] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

as  those  of  these  self-constituted  leaders,  be 
content  to  give  the  leadership  of  the  move- 
ment to  men  who  are  not  proletarians,  but 
middle-class  '  intellectuals  '  ?  Is  not  this  sup- 
posed to  be  a  movement  of  the  working 
class?  What,  then,  are  these  people  from 
the  exploiting  class  doing  in  our  ranks?  And 
why  should  we  make  them  our  leaders? 
Surely,  it  is  time  for  us  to  make  it  a  work- 
ing-class movement  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
name !  " 

Talk  of  this  kind,  plentifully  interlarded 
with  apt  quotations  from  Marx,  Lassalle, 
Kautsky,  and  other  great  intellectual  leaders 
of  the  movement,  may  be  made  very  con- 
vincing to  a  certain  type  of  mind.  Many 
perfectly  honest  and  sincere  Socialists,  espe- 
cially among  proletarians  of  very  limited 
education,  are  captivated  by  it.  The  fact 
that  the  leaders  of  the  agitation  are  them- 
selves very  rarely  proletarians  but  petty  "  in- 
tellectuals," is  generally  lost  sight  of, 
strangely  enough.  But  such  is  the  fact. 
The  leaders  of  the  anti-intellectualist  agitation 

[73] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

are  nearly  always  unsuccessful  "  intellectuals  " 
—  lawyers  without  clients,  authors  without 
publishers,  professors  without  chairs,  minis- 
ters without  pulpits,  and  so  on. 

Sometimes  this  anti-intellectualism  assumes 
the  dimensions  of  a  crisis.     Important  elec- 
tions in  the  party  are  fought  upon  the  Issue. 
At  such  times,  the  life  of  the  movement  is 
jeopardized,    for   if   the   demagogic   element 
should    succeed    the    "  intellectuals "    would 
either  be  forced  to  submit  to  the  rule  of  the 
demagogues,    and    see    the    movement    com- 
■  mitted  to  suicidal  policies,  or  leave  the  party 
and  establish  a  new  party  upon  broader  and 
saner  lines.     And  In  that  case  It  might  take 
many  years  of  fratricidal  strife  among  them- 
selves before   the   Socialists  would  be   In   a 
position  to  devote  their  attention  to  fighting 
the  common   enemy  Instead  of   each   other. 
Fortunately,  that  stage  Is  never  reached,  ex- 
cept In  isolated  localities.     No  matter  how 
strong  the  feeling  against  the  "  Intellectuals  " 
may  be,  the  great  bulk  of  the  party  members 
are  never  so  stupid  as  to  force  out  of  the 

[74] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

movement  the  best  writers,  editors  and  ora- 
tors It  has. 

It  is  not  in  times  of  crisis  that  the  worst 
evils  of  this  form  of  demagoguery  manifest 
themselves,  however,  but  rather  in  normal 
times.  Crises  thus  precipitated  are  always 
followed  by  healthy  reactions.  What  is 
most  to  be  deplored  is  the  fact  that,  year  in 
and  year  out,  often  unobserved  except  by 
the  thoughtful  few,  the  sinister  spirit  is  at 
work,  sowing  dissension  where  unity  is  so 
much  needed;  giving  the  organized  move- 
ment in  many  cities  into  the  hands  of  blatant 
demagogues  who  make  Socialism  a  byword 
and  a  reproach;  hampering  the  elected 
leaders  of  the  movement  by  raising  all  kinds 
of  foolish  issues;  lowering  the  Intellectual 
and  moral  tone  of  the  propaganda  of  the 
movement;  and,  perhaps  worst  of  all,  de- 
moralizing the  rank  and  file  of  the  movement 
by  setting  ignorance  upon  a  pedestal  and  dis- 
counting the  necessity  and  advantage  of  ed- 
ucation and  culture. 

I  am  ready  to  accept  full  responsibility  to 

[75] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

the  party  for  saying  here,  deliberately,  and 
with  all  the  force  at  my  command,  that  it  is 
my  sincere  belief  that  the  most  unscrupulous 
and  cunning  enemies  of  Socialism  could  not 
devise  anything  more  dangerous  to  the  move- 
ment than  this  demagogic  opposition  to  the 
"  intellectuals  "  which  finds  so  much  favor 
within  our  own  ranks,  and  that  its  apostles 
are,  ignorantly  or  otherwise,  playing  the  ene- 
my's game. 


[76] 


Ill 


HAVING  said  so  much  expressive  of  my 
own  attitude  toward  anti-intellectual- 
ism,  I  need  not  further  discuss  it.  To 
make  an  elaborate  defense  of  the  "  intel- 
lectuals," or  to  argue  at  length  against  a 
folly  so  stupendous  as  anti-intellectualism 
would  be  an  ill  use  of  our  time.  What  I 
propose  to  do  is  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of 
the  role  this  particular  form  of  demagoguery 
has  played  in  the  history  of  the  international 
Socialist  movement.  Perhaps  the  effect  of 
such  a  review  will  be  to  awaken  some  of 
you  to  the  danger  of  anti-intellectualism  to 
the  movement,  and  inspire  you  to  oppose  it. 
It  may  be,  too,  that  some  sincere  Socialist 
who  has  listened  with  sympathy  to  the 
preachers  of  this  sinister  gospel  will  see  Its 
evil  side  and  set  himself  against  it.     If  either 

[77] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

or  both  of  these  results  are  attained,  my  task 
will  be  well  rewarded. 

We  date  the  rise  of  the  modern  Socialist 
movement  from  the  publication  of  the  Com- 
munist Manifesto,  in  1848.  That  great  doc- 
ument was  the  birth-cry  of  the  movement. 
For  a  decade  before  its  publication  there  had 
existed  a  number  of  little  revolutionary 
groups  and  societies,  most  of  them  offshoots 
of  the  agitation  carried  on  by  Mazzini  in 
1835.  Practically  all  these  groups  and  so- 
cieties were  secret,  conspiratory  bodies. 

When  Marx  went  to  Paris  in  1843,  he 
soon  discovered  that  such  a  "  movement  "  as 
there  was  consisted  of  numerous  little  warring 
groups  who  spent  their  time  and  strength  op- 
posing each  other.  One  faction,  perhaps  the 
strongest  numerically,  consisted  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Etienne  Cabet,  who  dreamed  of 
establishing  a  Utopia,  a  terrestrial  paradise, 
in  America,  and  advocated  emigration  for 
that  purpose.  Next  in  numerical  importance 
came  the  followers  of  Wilhelm  Weitling, 
wedded  to  the   old  methods  of  secret  con- 

[78] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

spiracles  and  violent  insurrections.  Weit- 
ling's  practical  policy  was  thus  essentially 
that  of  Mazzini,  and  the  followers  of  the 
great  Italian  were  practically  supporters  of 
Weitling's  policy,  even  though  they  disavowed 
his  leadership  and  remained  loyal  to  Maz- 
zini. One  common  thought  dominated  them 
all :  by  secret  organization  the  workers  were 
to  prepare  themselves  for  swift,  sudden  and 
decisive  insurrections,  which  would  give  the 
government  of  cities,  and  even  states,  into 
their  hands. 

Equally  opposed  to  both  these  factions 
was  another  large  element.  It  would  be  in- 
accurate to  describe  it  as  another  faction,  for 
it  had  no  unity  of  its  own.  It  was  composed 
of  numerous  petty  factions  which  had  little 
in  common  with  each  other  except  their  op- 
position to  the  two  factions  already  described. 
Petty  sects  and  social  quacks  of  all  kinds 
were  included  in  this  element.  Most  im- 
portant and  notable  were  the  remnants  of  the 
Saint  Simonian  and  Fourierist  movements. 
The  few  remaining  devotees  of  Saint  Simon 

[79] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

were  divided  into  two  hostile  groups,  one 
acknowledging  Enfantin's  leadership  and  the 
other  repudiating  it.  The  Fourierists  were 
discouraged  and  demoralized  by  the  utter 
failure  of  the  great  American  Fourierist 
experiments,  at  Brook  Farm  and  else- 
where. 

As  soon  as  Marx  was  sufficiently  familiar 
with  the  situation  he  began  to  advocate  an 
entire  reorganization  of  the  movement.  Or 
perhaps  it  would  be  truer  to  say  that  he  ad- 
vocated the  organization  of  a  new  movement 
out  of  the  best  elements  of  the  numerous 
sects,  groups  and  societies  already  existing. 
In  many  discussions  with  the  various  leaders 
he  urged  that  the  time  had  come  for  the  cre- 
ation of  a  strong  proletarian  movement, 
which  would  abandon  all  attempts  to  estab- 
lish a  Utopia  as  futile,  forsake  the  traditional 
methods  of  secret  conspiracy  and  violent  in- 
surrection, and  come  out  into  the  open  with 
a  frankly  avowed  revolutionary  aim  and 
policy.  And  when  he  and  Engels  went  to 
Brussels  the  two  kept  on  advocating  these 

[80] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

views    in   newspaper   articles,    speeches,    and 
personal  letters. 

With  these  facts  In  mind,  it  is  easy  to 
understand  how  it  came  to  pass  that  Marx 
was  the  man  whom  Joseph  Moll,  the  watch- 
maker of  immortal  memory,  invited  to  under- 
take the  reorganization  of  the  movement, 
and  the  formulation  of  a  programme  and 
policy  for  it,  and  how,  as  a  result,  Marx  and 
Engels  later  on  wrote  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo and  became  the  acknowledged  leaders 
of  the  new  organization. 

For  our  present  purpose,  the  significance 
of  this  chapter  in  our  history  lies  in  the  fact 
that,  as  soon  as  the  efforts  of  Marx  and 
Engels  began  to  show  tangible  results,  the 
sinister  cry  of  anti-intellectualism  was  raised. 
At  the  first  congress  in  London,  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1847,  when  Engels  and  Wilhelm 
Wolff  attended  and  acted  as  spokesmen  for 
Marx,  arguing  for  the  adoption  of  what  had 
already  come  to  be  known  as  the  Marxist 
policy,  great  opposition  developed,  naturally 
enough,  in  the  ranks  of  Cabet,  Weithng,  and 

[81] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

other  leaders  whose  policies  Marx  condemned 
and  desired  to  supplant.  Marx  had  sneered 
at  the  Cabetists  as  "  visionaries  "  and  "  social 
quacks  "  and  contemptuously  described  those 
who  held  the  views  of  Weitling  and  Mazzini 
as  "  phrase  mongers "  and  "  mouthers  of 
revolutionary  nothings."  In  turn,  he  was 
called  "  a  mere  theorist,"  "  a  closet  philoso- 
pher "  and  a  "  reactionary  politician." 

Unfortunately,  there  exists  no  official  rec- 
ord of  the  discussions  at  that  congress,  nor 
of  the  second  congress,  which  was  held  a  few 
months  later,  In  November,  and  which  Marx 
himself  attended.  But  dear  old  Frederick 
Lessner,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Arbeiter 
Bildtingsverein  at  the  time,  and  thoroughly 
familiar  with  all  that  went  on,  told  me  on 
more  than  one  occasion  that  the  opponents  of 
Marx  raised  the  cry  of  "  down  with  the  '  In- 
tellectuals,' "  not  only  at  the  first  congress, 
but  all  through  the  intervening  period  to 
November,  and  even  at  that  congress  when 
Marx  read  the  first  draft  of  the  Communist 
Manifesto,  which  was  adopted  as  the  theoret- 

[82] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

ical  and  practical  programme  of  the  move- 
ment. Lessner's  testimony  is  conclusive  and 
will  satisfy  all  who  know  the  history  of  the 
Socialist  movement.  It  was  he  who  took  the 
manuscript  of  the  Communist  Manifesto  to 
the  printer,  and  from  that  time  to  their 
deaths  he  was  the  devoted  friend  and  con- 
fidant of  both  Marx  and  Engels. 

Of  course,  the  circumstances  were  excep- 
tionally favorable  to  the  demagogues  who 
raised  the  cry.  They  were  "  men  of  ac- 
tion " :  they  wanted  deeds,  not  words.  Weit- 
ling  offered  deeds.  His  was  essentially  a 
policy  of  action,  but  Marx  counseled  its 
abandonment,  and  offered  in  its  place  —  a 
system  of  philosophy!  Weltling  told  them 
that  any  day  might  bring  the  opportunity  to 
strike  the  blow  that  would  achieve  decisive 
victory.  Thus  they  had  something  to  work 
for,  an  immediate  goal  that  was  almost  in 
sight.  Marx,  on  the  other  hand,  talked  of 
evolution,  and  told  them  that  the  social  rev- 
olution must  be  the  outcome  of  economic  de- 
velopment, not  of  cunning,  courageous  and 

[83] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

desperate  insurrections.  Clearly,  Marx  was 
not  a  revolutionist  at  all,  but  only  a  reac- 
tionary politician ! 

Furthermore,  Marx  had  repeatedly  warned 
them  against  reposing  their  trust  In  the 
bourgeoisie,  and  told  them  that  the  working 
class  must  rely  upon  Its  own  power  and  de- 
velop its  own  leaders.  Very  well,  then,  let 
them  take  him  at  his  word!  Marx  himself 
was  a  bourgeois  "  Intellectual,"  not  a  proleta- 
rian. Weitling,  on  the  other  hand,  belonged 
to  the  proletariat;  he  was  a  poor  tailor,  and 
he  had,  moreover,  suffered  a  long  term  of 
imprisonment  for  the  cause.  Obviously,  he 
was  the  leader  to  follow,  and  Marx  was  in- 
consistent and  Insincere  In  seeking  the  leader- 
ship of  the  movement. 

It  Is  readily  apparent  that  a  very  plausible 
appeal  could  be  made  against  Marx  upon 
such  grounds  as  these,  even  though  the  more 
thoughtful  men  in  the  movement  might  re- 
alize that  Weitling  was  no  longer  a  tailor, 
and  that  he  was  as  much  of  an  "  intellectual  " 
as  Marx  himself,  being  entirely  dependent 

[84] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

upon  his  literary  work  for  a  living.  As  we 
know,  the  demagogues  failed  and  Marx  suc- 
ceeded. It  is  perhaps  worth  while,  in  view 
of  the  recent  outcry  against  the  "  Intellec- 
tuals "  In  our  own  ranks,  to  consider  what 
would  have  happened  if  the  result  of  that 
struggle  of  sixty  years  ago  had  been  differ- 
ent, and  Weitllng's  policy  had  prevailed. 
Do  any  of  our  present-day  preachers  of  antl- 
Intellectualism  really  believe  that  the  move- 
ment w^ould  have  been  benefited  by  the  defeat 
of  Marx,  and  that  It  would  have  been  well 
for  the  movement  if  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo never  had  been  written? 


[85] 


IV 


THE  cry,  "  Down  with  the  '  intel- 
lectuals!'" was  again  raised  against 
Marx  and  Engels  some  three  years 
later.  As  usual,  it  was  raised  by  men  who 
were  not  proletarians,  but  petty  "  intel- 
lectuals "  themselves,  not  only  in  the  sense 
that  they  depended  upon  intellectual  work 
of  some  sort  for  a  living,  but  also  in  the 
sense  that  their  point  of  view  was  abstract 
and  theoretical  and  entirely  unrelated  to  the 
realities  of  life.  It  is  well  to  keep  this  latter 
aspect  of  intellectualism  in  mind,  because  we 
are  sometimes  told  by  its  apologists  that  the 
agitation  against  the  "  intellectuals  "  in  the 
party  is  not  directed  against  leaders  who  hap- 
pen to  be  engaged  in  the  various  intellectual 
occupations,  but  against  a  point  of  view,  a 
mental  attitude,  a  method  of  approaching 
questions  of  party  policy. 

[86] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

It  is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  this  ingen- 
ious "  explanation  "  must  be  regarded  as  a 
rather  cowardly  evasion  of  the  real  issue. 
Or,  it  may  be,  in  some  instances,  a  pious  de- 
lusion arising  from  an  attempt  to  clothe 
folly  and  cunning  in  the  mantle  of  charity. 
Were  such  the  case,  we  should  not  find  the 
agitation  invariably  taking  the  form  of  an 
attempt  to  range  the  manual  workers  against 
the  brain  workers,  as  it  has  done  at  all  times 
in  our  history.  Instead  of  that,  we  should 
find  many  of  the  loudest  protagonists  of  the 
proletarlan-pure-and-slmple  conception  of  the 
movement  condemned  as  "  Intellectuals," 
while  many  of  the  great  thinkers  and  writers 
who  have  been  most  bitterly  assailed  as  "  in- 
tellectuals "  would  have  escaped  the  charge. 
Marx,  for  example,  would  never  have  been 
assailed  if  that  were  the  real  meaning  of  anti- 
intellectuallsm. 

We  shall  be  compelled  to  recur  to  this 
point  in  connection  with  some  later  manifesta- 
tions of  anti-lntellectualism :  for  the  moment 
we   must   leave    It    and    return    to    our    nar- 

[87] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

rative.  In  the  aftermath  of  the  defeat  of 
the  revolutionary  movements  of  1 848-1 849, 
the  leaders  of  the  Socialist  ^  movement  found 
themselves  compelled,  by  reason  of  oppressive 
laws  which  destroyed  the  freedom  of  the 
press  and  freedom  of  speech  and  assemblage, 
to  revert  to  the  old  methods  of  secret  or- 
ganization. Marx,  who  had  so  lately  led  the 
movement  from  its  dark  subterranean  chan- 
nels out  into  the  light  of  open  day,  had  to 
endure  the  mortification  of  seeing  it  return 
to  the  old  ways.  Marxism  thus  suffered  a 
serious  check. 

Of  course,  the  inevitable  soon  happened 
and  the  movement  became  demoralized. 
Like  every  other  conspiracy  or  secret  move- 
ment in  history,  it  soon  attracted  a  host  of  in- 
triguers and  adventurers.  Spies  and  agents 
provocateurs  joined  the  movement  in  large 
numbers  to  betray  its  secrets  to  the  police. 

1  The  word  "  Socialist "  is  here  used  in  connection 
with  the  movement  in  its  modern,  present-day  sense. 
In  1848-1849  the  word  "  Communist "  was  used  to  de- 
scribe the  working-class  movement.  It  was  not  until 
many  years  later  that  the  term  "  Socialist  movement " 
took  its  place. —  J.  S. 

[88] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Intrigue  became  the  main  business  of  the 
movement,  and  suspicion,  envy  and  jealousy 
flourished.  Marx  might  well  have  been  dis- 
mayed, but  instead  he  accepted  the  conditions 
thus  imposed  upon  his  leadership,  and  with 
rare  courage  and  wisdom  devoted  himself  to 
the  difficult  task  of  saving  the  movement 
from  the  influence  of  those  who  saw  in  the 
altered  conditions  opportunity  to  lead  it  back 
to  the  old  ways  of  insurrection. 

Impatient  and  romantic  hotheads  wanted 
to  attempt  new  revolutionary  uprisings,  and 
issued  manifestoes  which  were  ludicrously 
bombastic.  Against  these  Marx  stood  out 
bravely,  advocating  better  organization  of 
the  movement,  the  progressive  abandonment 
of  secret  methods,  personal  study  and  educa- 
tional propaganda.  Of  course,  the  "  impos- 
sibiHsts  "  of  that  time,  Willich,  Kinkel,  and 
others,  denounced  him  as  a  tool  of  the  re- 
action, and  resorted  to  the  old  cry  of  protest 
against  the  "  intellectuals,"  but  he  cared  not. 
Throughout  the  bitter  conflict,  up  to  the  time 
when  he   resigned   from   the   Central   Com- 

[89] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

mittee,  at  the  end  of  1850,  Marx  proved 
himself  to  be  a  wise  and  courageous  leader 
In  whose  nature  there  was  no  trace  of  derna- 
goguery. 

His  resignation  from  the  Central  Commit- 
tee was  not  the  act  of  a  defeated  and  disap- 
pointed leader,  but  of  a  leader  making  a  great 
sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  giving  weight  to  a 
grave  warning  he  was  addressing  to  the  rank 
and  file.  Wllllch  and  KInkel  told  the  work- 
ers that  they  ought  to  rise  at  once  and  seize 
political  power,  or  give  up  the  fight, —  fine 
phrases,  doubtless,  but  a  counsel  of  destruc- 
tion. Marx,  the  "  cowardly  Intellectual,"  on 
the  other  hand,  told  them  frankly  that  they 
were  not  ready  to  seize  political  power,  nor 
fit  to  wield  It;  that  It  would  take  them  many 
years  to  make  themselves  worthy! 


[90] 


ALTHOUGH  It  did  not  wholly  disap- 
pear, anti-intellectualism  was  little 
heard  of  in  the  movement  during  more 
than  a  decade.  Then  It  once  more  raised 
its  ugly  head  in  connection  with  the  founda- 
tion of  the  International  Workingmen's  As- 
sociation, and  from  that  time  to  the  end  of 
that  great  organization  It  was  constantly 
active.  Almost  from  the  beginning.  In  con- 
nection with  the  titanic  struggle  between 
Marx  and  Mazzlnl  for  the  control  of  the 
International,  the  enemies  of  Marx  raised 
the  old  cry  against  him.  That  Mazzini  was 
equally  an  "  intellectual,"  If  we  regard  only 
the  nature  of  his  work,  and  far  more  of  an 
"  intellectual "  If  we  consider  the  essence  of 
intellectualism  to  be  an  abstract,  theoretical 
and  idealistic  point  of  view,  was  of  no  con- 
sequence. 

[91] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

This  opposition  to  Marx  manifested  itself 
most  clearly  at  the  first  congress  of  the  In- 
ternational, held  at  Geneva,  in  1866.  Then 
certain  disciples  of  Proudhon,  acting,  no 
doubt,  under  his  direction,  fought  desperately 
for  the  adoption  of  a  rule  restricting  mem- 
bership in  the  organization  to  manual  work- 
ers who  were  bona  fide  wage-earners.  The 
object  of  this  rule  was  obviously  to  exclude 
Marx  and  Engels.  The  same  specious  dema- 
goguery  which  in  1847  would  have  prevented 
Marx  and  Engels  from  writing  the  Com- 
munist Manifesto,  would  have  prevented 
Marx  from  writing  that  great  masterpiece  of 
Socialist  political  literature,  the  Inaugural 
Address  of  the  International  Workingmen's 
Association,  in  1864,  and  deprived  the  move- 
ment of  the  brilliant  gifts  which  Marx  lav- 
ished upon  it. 

Only  the  most  disingenuous  minds  will  con- 
tend that  anti-intellectualism  is  a  protest 
simply  against  a  point  of  view,  a  method  of 
viewing  Socialist  tactics  and  policy,  in  view 
of  the  efforts  made  by  Tolain,  Fribourg,  and 

[92] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

other  followers  of  Proudhon,  at  the  Geneva 
congress  to  exclude  from  the  movement  all 
except  wage-earning  manual  workers.  It  is 
clear  that  they  would  have  excluded  all  who 
were  engaged  in  intellectual  occupations,  re- 
gardless of  their  mental  attitudes.^  Of 
course,  it  is  permissible  to  doubt  whether  they 
would  have  been  equally  anxious  to  adopt 
such  a  motion  if  some  other  person  than 
Marx,  Proudhon,  for  example,  had  been  at 
the  head  of  the  organization. 

Those  Socialists  who  are  still  innocent 
enough  to  believe  that  anti-intellectualism,  in- 
stead of  being  a  demagogic  attack  upon  those 

1  From  time  to  time  there  have  been  notable  in- 
stances of  this  same  hostility  toward  others  than 
wage-earners  in  the  American  Socialist  movement.  In 
Nebraska,  several  years  ago,  a  rule  was  actually  adopted 
to  limit  the  percentage  of  non-wage-workers  who  should 
be  allowed  membership  in  the  party!  Some  have  seri- 
ously proposed  to  limit  membership  in  the  party  to 
actual  wage-workers,  excluding  all  others,  quite  re- 
gardless of  their  views.  Curiously,  such  proposals  have 
generally  come  from  men  who  were  not  wage-earners ! 
Were  they,  then,  seeking  to  exclude  themselves?  Pos- 
sibly so.  My  candid  opinion,  however,  is  that  they  in- 
tended nothing  of  the  kind.  They  simply  resorted  to 
an  old  demagogic  method  of  discrediting,  if  possible, 
men  of  whose  position  and  influence  in  the  movement 
they  were  envious. —  J.  S. 

[93] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

of  superior  ability  and  education  who  attain 
positions  of  influence  in  the  movement,  is  sim- 
ply a  protest  against  a  certain  mental  atti- 
tude toward  the  movement,  would  do  well  to 
make  themselves  familiar  with  the  mental  at- 
titude of  those  followers  of  Proudhon  who 
raised  the  issue  in  1866  at  Geneva  and  at  the 
Lausanne  congress  a  year  later.  Were  they 
hard-headed,  class-conscious  proletarians, 
who  viewed  the  movement  from  the  stand- 
point of  stern  reality,  and  protested  against 
the  leadership  of  mere  theorists  and  Uto- 
pians, men  who  knew  the  proletarian  life 
only  from  books? 

Not  at  all.  Their  point  of  view  was 
purely  Utopian.  They  talked  noisily  of 
"  absolute  justice  "  and  offered  plans  for  the 
social  revolution  so  fundamental  as  the  aboli- 
tion of  usury  through  the  introduction  of 
"  free  credit  "  and  a  paper  currency,  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  universal  language  of  which 
Proudhon  was  the  inventor,  simplified  spell- 
ing, quite  a  la  Roosevelt,  and  Guillaume's  pet 
invention,  a  new  system  of  phonography  I 

[94] 


VI 


AFTER  Proudhon  came  Bakunin,  and  a 
new  outburst  of  anti-intellectualism. 
Bakunin  joined  the  International  in 
1868,  becoming  a  member  of  a  branch  at 
Geneva,  soon  after  the  Brussels  congress. 
This  was  when  the  International  was  ap- 
proaching its  zenith,  and  even  the  London 
Times  editorially  likened  its  growth  to  that 
of  early  Christianity.^  No  sooner  did  Baku- 
nin join  the  organization  than  he  began  to 
make  trouble.  Whatever  his  motives  in 
joining  may  have  been,  it  is  certain  that  he 
was  from  the  very  first  disloyal  and  dishonest. 
Bakunin  wanted  to  wrest  the  leadership  of 
the  movement  from  Marx  that  he  might  take 
his  place.  One  of  the  first  things  he  did  was 
to  establish  an  organization  of  his  own, 
within  the  organization,  the  famous  Alliance 

1  Quoted  by  G.  Jaeckh,  Die  Internationale. 

[95] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

de  la  Democratie  Socialiste.  Nominally,  the 
Alliance  was  a  branch  of  the  International, 
but  it  was  actually  a  rival  organization  which 
Bakunin  hoped  to  develop  within  the  Inter- 
national until  it  should  be  powerful  enough  to 
supplant  the  latter  organization,  or  swallow 
it.  It  was  itself  an  international  organiza- 
tion, with  branches  of  its  own,  a  separate  pro- 
gramme of  its  own,  a  separate  president  and 
executive  council,  and  was  to  hold  its  own  in- 
ternational congresses. 

Of  course,  Marx  was  astute  enough  to 
comprehend  the  significance  of  Bakunin's 
Alliance.  It  was  not  long  before  the  Gen- 
eral Council  of  the  International  informed 
Bakunin  that  he  must  either  disband  the 
Alliance  or  leave  the  International.  Imme- 
diately Bakunin  and  his  followers  set  up  the 
cry  that  Marx  was  a  despot,  a  dictator,  and 
a  bourgeois  "  intellectual." 

And  then  a  strange  thing  happened.  At 
the  Basel  congress,  in  1869,  it  was  proposed 
by  Marx's  followers,  on  behalf  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council,  that  power  should  be  vested  in 

[96] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

the  General  Council  to  expel  any  section 
violating  the  rules  of  the  association,  without 
waiting  for  the  annual  congress.  Marx 
wanted  the  power  to  enable  him  to  crush 
Bakunin  whenever  opportunity  and  occasion 
arose.  Under  the  circumstances,  therefore, 
it  was  expected  that  Bakunin,  who  had  been 
denouncing  Marx  for  his  "  despotism  "  and 
"  dictatorship,"  would  violently  resist  the  de- 
mand. But,  instead  of  that,  Bakunin  sup- 
ported the  demand  most  vigorously,  com- 
plaining only  that  it  did  not  go  far  enough! 
The  General  Council,  he  said,  ought  to  have 
power  to  prevent  the  formation  of  new  sec- 
tions if  they  deemed  such  action  necessary, 
as  well  as  the  power  to  suspend  any  section 
at  any  time. 

What  was  the  explanation  of  this  strange 
action?  It  was  not  long  before  the  great 
master  intriguer  revealed  his  hand.  At  the 
bidding  of  the  General  Council  the  year  be- 
fore Bakunin  had  disbanded  the  Alliance, 
but  immediately  reorganized  all  its  branches 
as     branches     of     the     International.     The 

[97] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

change  was  simply  one  of  name.  Bakunin 
still  had  a  personal  organization  within  the 
International,  and  his  position  was  stronger 
than  before  rather  than  otherwise.  Now,  at 
the  Basel  congress  Bakunin  hoped  and  fully 
believed  that  his  supporters  far  outnumbered 
those  of  Marx.  Here,  then,  was  a  fine  op- 
portunity to  wrest  the  control  of  the  organ- 
ization from  Marx,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
have  the  supporters  of  Marx  play  into  his 
hands  by  so  strengthening  the  rules  of  the 
organization  that  when  he  assumed  power  he 
would  be  impregnable.  For  such  a  prize  as 
that,  Bakunin  was  perfectly  willing  to  forget 
that  he  had  so  recently  opposed  Marx  as  a 
despot  and  a  dictator. 

I  will  not  weary  you  by  describing  in  de- 
tail the  antl-intellectualist  outbreaks  of  the 
years  which  intervened  between  the  congress 
at  Basel,  in  1869,  and  that  at  The  Hague, 
three  years  later,  which  practically  ended  the 
life  of  the  International.  Suffice  it  to  say 
that,  even  during  the  time  of  the  Paris  Com- 
mune, the  followers  of  Bakunin  kept  up  the 

-      [98] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

agitation,  especially  in  Spain  and  Italy.  In 
all  the  history  of  popular  movements  I  know 
of  no  story  of  organized  treachery  to  equal 
that  of  the  Jura  Federation,  the  organization 
of  Bakunin's  followers,  an  Integral  part  of 
the  International. 

Its  members  denounced  Marx  and  Engels 
as  "bourgeois  Intellectuals"  and  "priests"; 
its  official  organ  the  Revolution  Sociale,^ 
edited  by  a  refugee  of  the  Paris  Commune, 
named  Claris,  repeated  every  dirty  slander 
against  the  General  Council  of  the  Interna- 
tional made  by  such  sheets  as  the  Figaro^  the 
Gaulois,  and  other  reactionary  papers;  Its 
work  was  warmly  praised  by  Gambetta's 
organ,  La  Republique  Frangaise,  and  similar 
papers;  Revolution  Sociale  even  charged  that 
the  General  Council,  and  especially  Marx  and 
Engels,  were  in  league  with  Bismarck ! 

^  Revolution  Sociale  was  made  the  official  organ  of  the 
Jura  Federation  at  its  congress  at  Sonvillier,  at  the  end 
of  1871. 


[99] 


VII 

AT  the  congress  of  1872,  held  at  The 
Hague,  Marx  realized  that  it  was  im- 
possible for  him  to  continue  the  war 
with  Bakunin  and  his  followers  and  the  other 
enemies  of  the  International.  Therefore,  he 
had  decided,  in  consultation  with  Engels  and 
a  few  other  trusted  advisers,  upon  a  desper- 
ate move.  Bakunin  had  announced  that  he 
would  attend  the  congress  to  expose  Marx 
and  his  clique.  Therefore,  Marx,  who  as  a 
rule  never  attended  congresses,  resolved  to 
attend  and  confront  his  old  enemy  in  open 
debate.  He  planned  to  inflict  a  crushing  de- 
feat upon  Bakunin,  drive  him  out  of  the  or- 
ganization in  disgrace,  and  then,  under  guise 
of  removing  the  seat  of  the  General  Council 
to  America,  practically  wreck  the  organiza- 
tion and  thus  save  it  from  further  attempts 
of  Bakunin  to  capture  it. 

[100] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Bakunin  did  not  attend,  after  all,  but  left 
his  cause  in  the  hands  of  his  friends  Guil- 
laume  and  Schwitzguibel,  who  vociferously 
raised  the  old  outcry  against  "  intellectuals  " 
in  the  movement.  They  opposed  Maltman 
Barrie,  who  was  a  delegate,  upon  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  journalist,  and  not  a  proleta- 
rian! Marx  and  Engels  they  also  opposed 
as  "  bourgeois  intellectuals."  Paul  Lafargue 
was  not  only  an  "  intellectual,"  but  the  son- 
in-law  of  Marx,  therefore  they  opposed  him. 
Even  Edouard  Vaillant's  activities  in  the 
Commune  did  not  avail  to  save  him  from 
attack,  for  he,  too,  was  an  "  intellectual,"  a 
physician.  Anti-intellectualism  attained  the 
climax  of  absurdity  at  that  congress. 

You  are  famihar  enough  with  the  outcome 
of  the  congress  at  The  Hague,  Bakunin 
was  expelled,  together  with  his  henchmen, 
Guillaume  and  Schwitzguibel,  and  the  head- 
quarters of  the  association  removed  to  Amer- 
ica. Thus  Marx  had  defeated  Bakunin  and 
saved  the  International  from  his  grasp,  by 
destroying  it. 

[lOl] 


Sidelights    on    Contetnporary    Socialism 

But  that  did  not  end  the  demagogic  cry  of 
opposition  to  the  "intellectuals."  In  1873 
within  the  ranks  of  the  British  Federation, 
which  still  maintained  a  nominal  existence 
and  aclcnowledged  the  General  Council  in 
New  York  as  the  executive  head  of  the  In- 
ternational, there  had  been  a  good  deal  of 
opposition  to  the  action  of  the  congress  at 
The  Hague,  and,  naturally,  that  meant  oppo- 
sition to  Marx  and  Engels.  In  January, 
1873,  John  Hales,  ex-secretary  of  the  Inter- 
national, bitterly  assailed  both  Marx  and 
Engels,  and  tried  to  get  the  British  Federa- 
tion to  expel  Marx  on  the  ground  that  he  was 
a  "  despot,"  a  "  middle  class  intellectual," 
and  so  on,  using  the  familiar  Bakuninist  tac- 
tics and  phrases.  Marx  and  Engels  were  at 
last  obhged  to  reply  to  Hales  through  the 
columns  of  the  International  Herald,  as  well 
as  in  a  circular  which  fully  exposed  Hales. 

And  now,  a  word  or  two  concerning  some 
of  the  most  active  and  prominent  of  the  anti- 
intellectualists.  It  is  not  without  significance, 
I   think,   that  practically  without  exception, 

[  102] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

they  can  be  included  in  one  of  two  classes. 
Almost  to  a  man,  they  were  either  empty- 
headed  Utopians,  men  with  schemes  for  the 
speedy  salvation  of  mankind,  such  as  "  free 
credit,"  universal  languages,  and  the  like,  or 
they  were  men  whose  overwhelming  desire 
for  personal  gain  or  power  led  them  into  the 
lowest  depths  of  treachery  and  deceit. 

Bakunin's  Machiavellian  policy  Is  a  case 
in  point.  The  conduct  of  John  Hales  is  an- 
other. Hales,  even  while  he  was  the  secre- 
tary of  the  International,  was,  as  was  later 
proved,  secretly  in  league  with  Bakunin,  con- 
spiring with  him  to  have  the  Alliance  sup- 
plant it.  Then  there  were  men  like  Albert 
Richard  and  Gaspard  Blanc,  intimate  asso- 
ciates of  Bakunin,  among  the  most  active 
members  of  the  Alliance,  bitter  opponents  of 
Marx  and  all  other  "  Intellectuals."  ^  Not 
long  after  the  Paris  Commune  these  men 
were  conducting  a  Bonapartist  agitation 
among  the  French  exiles,  and  Marx  exposed 
them.     Then  only  did  they  come  out  Into  the 

^  Cf.  G.  Jaeckh,  Die  Internationale. 

[103] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

open  with  a  signed  manifesto,  bombastically 
declaring  that  they,  Albert  Richard  and 
Gaspard  Blanc,  had  "  built  up  the  great  army 
of  the  French  proletariat "  and  were  "  the 
acknowledged  chiefs  of  the  proletariat  in 
France "  and  concluding  with  the  words, 
"  there  comes  from  the  depths  of  our  hearts 
and  from  that  of  every  Frenchman  the  cry 
of  '  Long  live  the  Emperor!  '  "  ^ 

1  Idem. 


[  104] 


VIII 

IN  this  outline  I  have  sketched  only  a  few 
of  the  manifestations  of  anti-intellectual- 
ism  which  hampered  Marx  and  Engels  in 
their  great  work.  I  purposely  refrain  from 
discussing  those  later  manifestations  which 
come  within  the  scope  of  my  own  experience 
for  reasons  which  require  no  explanation.  It 
is  impossible  to  review  this  chapter  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  movement  without  feeling  that 
anti-intellectualism  is  a  terrible  perversion  of 
essential  democracy,  a  subtle  disease  against 
which  the  movement  must  protect  itself.    . 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized,  I 
think,  that  any  attempt  to  limit  the  influence 
and  work  of  any  number  of  honest  and  sin- 
cere Socialists,  simply  because  they  are  not 
manual  laborers,  must  of  necessity  be  mis- 
chievous and  injurious  to  the  movement. 
This  is  a  working-class  movement  primarily, 

[  105  ] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

and  no  conspiracy  can  change  that  essential 
characteristic.  But  to  attempt  to  exclude 
from  active  participation  in  it  all  who  are  not 
manual  laborers  is  either  the  counsel  of  fools 
or  of  traitors.  If  such  an  attempt  were  to 
succeed  It  would  doom  the  movement  to  de- 
feat. A  working-class  movement  which  de- 
liberately refused  to  avail  itself  of  all  the 
gifts  of  intellect  and  education  at  Its  com- 
mand, would  be  doomed  to  pursue  forever 
the  futile  task  of  plowing  sand. 


[io6] 


Ill 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  MARX  ON 
CONTEMPORARY  SOCIALISM 


I 


FOR  many  years  the  words  "  Socialism  " 
and  "  Marxism  "  have  been  practically 
synonyms.  There  could  be  no  ampler 
proof  of  the  greatness  of  Karl  Marx  than  this 
simple  fact.  Over  a  large  part  of  the  Old 
World  to-day  Socialism  is  the  dominant 
political  issue,  and  in  the  parliamentary 
bodies  of  several  nations  its  leaders  are  con- 
spicuous for  their  ability  no  less  than  for 
their  earnestness,  devotion,  and  courage. 
Throughout  the  world  the  movement  has  a 
voting  strength  of  nearly  ten  millions,  repre- 
senting, probably,  at  least  five  times  as  many 
human  beings. 

It  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  great  and 
important  differences  exist  among  those  who 
call  themselves  Socialists.  However  much 
they  may  have  in  common,  it  is  obvious  that 
M.  Jaures,  the  eloquent  and  scholarly  French 

[  109] 


Sidelights    o?i    Contemporary    Socialism 

Socialist,  and  Mr.  Hyndman,  the  equally 
eloquent  and  scholarly  English  Socialist,  hold 
very  different  views  concerning  the  pro- 
gramme essential  to  the  attainment  of  the 
Socialist  goal,  if  not  as  to  the  goal  itself. 

Both  these  men  are  pure  "  intellectuals." 
Although  they  are  great  leaders  in  a  prol- 
etarian movement,  neither  of  them  has  had  to 
experience  the  proletarian  struggle.  But  if 
we  take  Socialists  who  are  equally  typical 
proletarians  we  shall  find  exactly  the  same 
divergence  of  thought  and  method.  Keir 
Hardie,  the  British  Socialist,  and  Eugene  V. 
Debs,  the  American  Socialist,  both  belong  to 
this  class.  Each  came  to  the  Socialist  move- 
ment through  his  trade-union  experience. 
Yet,  despite  the  apparent  similarity  of  their 
evolution  as  Socialists,  the  two  leaders  repre- 
sent opposing  poles  of  Socialist  policy  and 
thought. 

Such  obvious  facts  as  these  have  caused 
many  critics,  sympathetic  and  otherwise,  to 
attempt  a  classification  of  Socialists.  Even 
within  the  movement  Itself,  crude  efforts  are 

[no] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

made  in  this  direction.  The  SociaHst  press 
teems  with  references  to  arbitrarily  arranged 
groupings,  indicated  by  such  terms  as  "  im- 
possibilists,"  "  opportunists,"  "  intellectuals," 
*'  proletarians,"  and  so  on.  Such  groupings 
have  some  value  in  that  they  describe,  how- 
ever vaguely,  some  characteristics  which 
roughly  differentiate  various  phases  of  con- 
temporary Socialism.  Their  arbitrary  char- 
acter should  not  be  forgotten,  however,  for 
a  single  moment.  He  who  trusts  them  too 
completely  will  be  utterly  misled.  The  "  op- 
portunist "  of  to-day  may  to-morrow  be 
found  taking  a  position  which  places  him 
among  the  "  impossibilists,"  and  the  most 
vociferous  attack  upon  the  "  intellectuals  "  is 
likely  to  come  from  an  intellectual,  much  to 
the  amusement  of  the  proletarians  in  the 
movement. 

It  is  quite  remarkable  that  practically  all 
Socialists,  whether  they  be  opportunists  or 
impossibilists,  proletarians  or  intellectuals,  or 
even  anti-intellectuals,  claim  to  be  "  Marx- 
ists."    The  English  Socialist  who  works  with 

[  III] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

the  trade  unionist,  through  the  Labor  Party, 
claims  to  be  a  pure  Marxist.  The  same 
claim  is  made  by  the  Impatient  "  syndicalist  " 
of  the  Latin  countries,  with  his  faith  in  the 
mass  strike  and  his  ill-concealed  disdain  for 
parliamentary  action.  In  practically  all  So- 
cialist factional  discussions  Marx  is  the 
prophet  of  all  the  factions. 

This  Identity  of  Marxism  and  Socialism 
has  long  been  recognized  as  one  of  the  most 
striking  facts  in  the  whole  range  of  Socialist 
phenomena.  Recently,  however,  there  has 
been  much  talk  of  the  waning  influence  of 
Marx  upon  contemporary  Socialist  thought 
and  action.  We  have  been  assured,  both 
from  within  and  without  the  Socialist  ranks, 
that  the  teachings  of  Marx  are  going  out  of 
fashion,  being  rapidly  and  more  or  less  openly 
abandoned.  One  lady  has,  indeed,  written 
a  book  about  The  New  Socialism,^  assuring 
us  that  "  Marx  called  up  a  swathed  and  ter- 

1  J.   T.   Stoddard,   The  New  Socialism.     New   York, 
1910. 

[112] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

rifying  figure,  in  which  the  world  sees  the 
dread  specter  of  revolution,"  whereas  the 
"  new  "  Socialists  are  devoting  themselves  to 
the  task  of  stripping  away  the  disguise,  and 
unveiling  "  the  kindly  features  of  a  radical 
and  comprehensive  social  reform." 

The  New  York  Chapter  of  the  Inter- 
collegiate Socialist  Society  has  announced  as 
one  of  its  study  topics  the  question,  "  Are  the 
Teachings  of  Karl  Marx  Being  Abandoned 
by  Present-Day  Socialists?"  and  it  is  to  that 
question  I  desire  to  address  myself  here. 

As  a  biographer  of  Marx,  it  has  been  my 
special  task,  during  more  than  a  dozen  years, 
to  try  to  understand  the  man.  It  has  become 
my  habit  to  view  the  developments  of  the 
Socialist  movement  throughout  the  world 
from  what  I  believe  to  be  his  point  of  view; 
to  interpret  his  writings  by  what  I  know  of 
his  life;  to  bring  all  that  I  know  of  his  life 
and  his  intimate  conversation  and  corre- 
spondence with  friends  to  my  aid  in  studying 
his  formally  stated  theories  as  they  appear 

[113] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

on  the  printed  page.  Whatever  disadvan- 
tage such  methods  may  have  are  more  than 
outweighed,  in  my  judgment,  by  the  numer- 
ous and  obvious  advantages. 


[114] 


II 


As  to  the  question  itself,  I  feel  strongly 
that  neither  an  unqualified  negative  nor 
an  unqualified  affirmative  reply  is  pos- 
sible. My  belief  is  that  the  Socialist  move- 
ment of  the  present  day  is  both  breaking  away 
from  and  drawing  closer  to  the  teachings  of 
the  great  German  revolutionist.  Recent  crit- 
icism has  compelled  all  thoughtful  and  sin- 
cere Socialists  to  admit  some  defects  in  Marx- 
ian theory,  and  to  recognize  the  necessity 
of  a  readjustment  of  their  theoretical  posi- 
tion, and  of  their  policies  so  far  as  they 
have  rested  upon  the  mistaken  theoretical 
premises.  But,  for  all  that,  the  unmistak- 
able tendency  of  present-day  Socialism  is  to- 
ward a  closer  adherence  to  the  essential  and 
fundamental  teachings  of  Marx,  not  away 
from  them.  Paradoxical  as  this  statement 
may  seem,  a  careful  and  candid  study  of  the 

[115] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

life  of  Marx  in  connection  with  recent  devel- 
opments in  the  international  Socialist  move- 
ment will  reveal  its  truth. 

"  As  for  me,  I  am  no  '  Marxist,'  I  am  glad 
to  say,"  was  a  saying  frequently  upon  the 
lips  of  Marx.  With  the  words  went  that 
half-sneering  expression  with  which  his  best 
portraits  have  made  us  familiar.  If  we  can 
fathom  the  meaning  of  the  cryptic  and  para- 
doxical utterance,  it  may  assist  us  very  ma- 
terially in  our  attempt  to  find  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  our  question.  Who,  then,  were 
the  "  Marxists  "  thus  scornfully  repudiated 
by  Marx,  and  what  were  the  reasons  for  the 
repudiation? 

During  his  lifetime,  as  now,  there  were 
many  disciples  of  Marx  who  regarded  his 
theoretical  work  as  being  his  greatest  achieve- 
ment, and  his  most  important  contribution  to 
the  cause  of  the  proletariat.  He  was  to 
them  primarily  a  political  economist.  They 
spoke  of  his  great  work,  Das  Kapital,  as  the 
"  Bible  of  the  proletariat,"  and  as  a  Bible 
they  regarded  it.     With  a  passion  which  can 

[ii6] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

only  be  adequately  described  as  religious,  tens 
of  thousands  of  working-men  laboriously 
read  and  studied  that  dif&cult  work.  It  was 
to  them  an  "  impregnable  rock  of  Holy 
Scripture."  Those  who  could  not  compre- 
hend the  work  as  a  whole  satisfied  themselves 
with  a  few  memorized  passages.  Like  all 
Bibles,  it  became  a  book  of  texts,  much 
quoted  but  little  read. 

Naturally,  those  who  regarded  the  book 
as  a  Bible  made  it  the  basis  of  a  creed.  Nat- 
urally, also,  their  creed  became  the  basis  of 
a  sect.  Doctrinal  tests  decided  the  fitness  or 
unfitness  of  men  and  women  to  enter  the 
Socialist  fellowship  and  to  be  reckoned  with 
the  elect.  Just  as  the  religious  sectarianism 
based  upon  creedal  and  doctrinal  tests  has 
barred  many  a  rare  and  beautiful  religious 
spirit  from  the  church,  while  it  placed  the 
word  "  orthodox  "  as  a  stamp  of  approval 
upon  many  an  unworthy  and  irreligious  spirit, 
so  this  sectarian  "  Marxism  "  imposed  its 
stamp  of  "  orthodox  "  and  "  unorthodox  " 
to  determine  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  men 

[117] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

and  women  to  be  called  Socialists.  Many 
who  believed  in  the  whole  programme  of  So- 
cialism, who  saw  the  necessity  of  a  working- 
class  political  party  to  bring  about  the  realiza- 
tion of  that  programme,  and  were  willing  to 
work  with  and  through  such  a  party  for  the 
immediate  interests  of  the  working  class,  and, 
ultimately,  the  collective  ownership  of  the 
social  productive  forces,  were  denied  the  right 
to  call  themselves  Socialists,  and  a  place  in 
the  Socialist  ranks,  simply  because  they  could 
not  subscribe  to  all  the  economic  and  philo- 
sophical teachings  of  Marx. 

In  every  country  Socialism  has  had  to  out- 
grow this  dogmatism  and  sectarianism  before 
attaining  political  importance.  In  almost 
every  country  the  movement  had  its  incep- 
tion in  a  theoretical  propaganda.  A  few 
earnest  souls  devoted  themselves  to  the  task 
of  studying  the  works  of  a  Fourier  or  a 
Marx  and  getting  others  to  study  them.  To 
fully  understand  the  master's  teachings  nat- 
urally became  the  chief  ambition  of  such  dis- 
ciples.    To  the  average  person,  the  zeal  and 

[ii8] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

devotion  of  such  men  and  women  is  incom- 
prehensible. I  have  known  a  working-man, 
of  scant  education,  to  walk  a  distance  of 
ten  miles  every  Sunday  morning  for  years, 
no  matter  what  the  weather,  to  study  with  a 
fellow  Socialist  the  first  volume  of  Das 
Kapital.  After  seven  or  eight  hours  of 
labored  study,  the  patient  student  would 
undertake  the  homeward  journey  of  ten  miles 
supremely  happy  if  he  had  mastered  a  single 
new  passage. 

Of  course,  his  joy  was  due  to  something 
other  than  mere  intellectual  satisfaction  and 
triumph.  It  rested  upon  a  much  nobler  pas- 
sion than  that.  Mastery  of  the  difficult  and 
abstract  text  was  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  a 
means  to  an  end  of  great  grandeur.  Only 
through  a  knowledge  of  Marx  could  the 
proletariat  ever  be  saved.  The  psychology 
of  this  attitude  is  not  difficult  to  understand. 
It  is  precisely  that  of  theological  sectarian- 
ism :  Marx  is  the  only  true  prophet,  his  book 
the  one  and  only  true  gospel,  and  every  ques- 
tion is  to  be  decided  by  an  appeal  to  its  text. 

[119] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  say  that  Karl 
Marx  was  too  great  and  wise  a  man  not  to 
recognize  the  folly  of  the  attitude  here  In- 
dicated, and  the  positive  perils  to  the  move- 
ment which  it  involved.  He  certainly  did 
not  deny  the  importance  of  correct  thinking, 
or  underrate  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  was 
apt  to  expect  and  demand  too  much  In  the 
way  of  theoretical  knowledge  from  those  en- 
gaged In  the  social  movement.  But  he  knew 
that  the  great  mass  of  the  workers  could 
never  be  expected  to  understand  fully  such 
philosophical  doctrines  as  the  materialistic 
conception  of  history,  or  theories  of  political 
economy  such  as  surplus  value.  He  was  not 
foolish  enough  to  believe  that  a  great  move- 
ment could  be  founded  upon  a  correct  under- 
standing of  such  subtle  and  difficult  theories. 
At  most  he  believed  that  the  movement  could 
be  guided  by  such  knowledge.  In  other 
words,  while  he  expected  and  desired  that  the 
leaders  of  the  movement  should  possess  a 
thorough  theoretical  training,  he  did  not  ex- 

[  I20] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

pect  anything  of  the  kind  from  the  rank  and 
file. 

When  his  overzealous  and  Impatient  dis- 
ciples sought  to  push  the  importance  of 
theoretical  training  beyond  this  limit,  and  to 
insist  upon  making  the  acceptance  and  under- 
standing of  his  theories  a  test  of  membership, 
Marx  was  impatient.  It  was  in  such  moods 
that  he  expressed  his  gratitude  that  he  was 
not  a  "  Marxist." 

There  was  another  reason  for  the  cr}'ptic 
and  paradoxical  epigram.  Like  all  great 
thinkers  upon  whose  work  a  definite  school  of 
thought  has  been  founded,  Marx  has  suf- 
fered greatly  at  the  hands  of  his  own  fol- 
lowers, through  their  wild  exaggeration  of 
his  theories.  The  prayer  of  his  heart  might 
well  have  been:  "  Save  me  from  my  friends 
—  I  can  take  care  of  my  enemies  myself !  " 

The  case  of  Rlcardo,  the  great  English 
economist,  may  be  pertinently  cited  as  a  well- 
known  example  of  the  discredit  which  Intel- 
lectual leaders  incur  as  a  result  of  the  unwise 

[121] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

zeal  of  their  followers.  Ricardo  took  for 
his  theme  the  law  of  wages  and  concluded 
that  wages,  as  a  rule,  tended  to  approximate 
the  cost  of  maintaining  a  given  standard  of 
living  at  a  given  time  and  place.  Ricardo 
surrounded  this  statement  with  numerous 
qualifications,  setting  forth  a  generalization 
of  great  importance.  But  Ricardo's  fol- 
lowers, more  "  Ricardian "  than  Ricardo 
himself,  ignored  all  the  qualifications  and 
stated  the  theory  In  a  grotesquely  exaggerated 
manner,  which  found  its  complete  expression 
in  Lassalle's  inflexible  "  iron  law  of  wages." 
A  great  and  profoundly  true  generalization 
of  the  master  became.  In  the  hands  of  his  dis- 
ciples, a  grotesque  and  dangerous  error. 

In  like  manner,  Marx  suffered  from  his 
more  Marxian  than  Marx  followers.  For 
example:  in  one  of  the  earliest  of  his  Socialist 
writings,  the  Communist  Manifesto,  he  de- 
veloped his  famous  class-struggle  theory  and 
emphasized  the  historic  role  of  the  prole- 
tariat. If  the  workers  are  ever  to  be  eman- 
cipated, he  declared,  it  must  be  through  their 

[  122] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

own  efforts.  Here  was  a  great  generaliza- 
tion of  tremendous  importance,  the  basis  for 
a  working-class  movement.  But  some  of  his 
followers,  disregarding  his  abundant  warn- 
ings, made  this  generalization  the  basis  of 
another,  which,  if  generally  accepted,  would 
have  robbed  the  working-class  movement  of 
the  service  of  many  of  the  finest  intellects 
and  devoted  consciences  ever  enlisted  in  its 
support.  Including  that  of  Marx  himself. 
Their  reasoning  was  very  simple  and  naive: 
Because  the  emancipation  of  the  proletariat 
must  be  the  work  of  the  proletariat  itself,  it 
follows  that  no  one  who  is  not  actually  a  pro- 
letarian can  loyally  desire  to  serve  the  move- 
ment for  proletarian  emancipation.  De- 
termined efforts  were  made  by  some  "  Marx- 
ists "  to  exclude  Marx  himself  from  the 
movement  upon  these  grounds  1 

One  other  example  of  the  exaggeration  of 
his  theories  of  which  Marx  was  the  victim 
must  suffice,  though  the  number  of  such  il- 
lustrations might  be  indefinitely  extended. 
The   materialistic   conception    of   history,    a 

[  123] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

doctrine  of  the  highest  philosophical  and 
sociological  importance,  is  perhaps  the  great- 
est of  the  intellectual  achievements  of  Marx. 
The  gist  of  this  theory  is  that  the  principal 
factor  in  social  evolution  is  the  economic  one, 
the  method  of  producing  and  distributing 
wealth.  This  has  become  nowadays  a  com- 
monplace, but  it  was  a  revolutionary  idea 
when  Marx  first  proclaimed  it. 

Now,  Marx  never  dreamed  of  asserting 
that  the  economic  force  acts  as  the  sole  de- 
terminant of  social  evolution.  In  order  to 
focus  the  attention  of  the  thinkers  of  his  time 
upon  his  theory,  and  in  meeting  the  attacks 
of  opponents,  he,  quite  naturally,  at  times 
overemphasized  this  one  factor.  Yet  he  did 
not  fail  to  warn  his  disciples  against  falling 
into  the  error  of  regarding  the  economic 
factor  as  the  only  active  influence  in  social 
evolution.  His  followers,  many  of  them, 
disregarded  these  warnings  and  carried  the 
tendency  to  exaggerate  which  Marx  himself 
manifested  to  the  most  absurd  length.  In 
their  hands  the  theory  became  one  of  simple 

[124] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

economic  fatalism  and  predestination.  Ac- 
cording to  their  caricature  of  the  theory,  no 
other  factors  have  influenced  the  rate  or  di- 
rection of  the  evolution  of  society:  race,  re- 
ligion, patriotism,  ideals  of  all  kinds  have 
been  meaningless. 

This  economic  fatalism  has  been  carried  to 
the  most  absurd  lengths,  especially  in  Amer- 
ica. In  the  name  of  Marx  the  preposterous 
claim  has  been  set  up  that,  because  men  in 
general  arc  prone  to  act,  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, in  accordance  with  their  material 
interests,  there  must  be  an  ascertainable 
economic  motive  for  every  act  of  an  indi- 
vidual; that  if  one  whose  material  interests 
are  such  as  to  identify  him  with  the  capitalist 
class,  the  exploiters,  enters  the  movement  of 
the  working  class,  the  exploited,  the  sincerity 
of  his  action  must  be  denied,  and  a  secret, 
hidden,  ulterior  motive  suspected!  In  actual 
experience  this  grotesquely  stupid  conception 
of  Marx's  great  generalization  has  wrought 
great  mischief  in  the  Socialist  movement. 

These  two  sets  of  his  disciples  —  those 
[125] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

who  regarded  him  as  a  pope,  at  least,  and 
sought  to  make  an  orthodox  creed  of  his 
theories,  and  those  whose  crude  and  wild 
statements  of  the  most  pro''ound  truths  trans- 
formed them  into  nightmares  of  error  — 
were  the  "  Marxists  "  against  whom  Marx 
so  often  directed  his  withering  satire.  Marx 
chafed  and  groaned  in  spirit  when  such  fol- 
lowers as  those  comprised  in  the  two  groups 
we  have  considered  reduced  his  important 
philosophical  and  economic  principles  to  a 
jumble  of  meaningless  absurdity.  And,  with 
that  fine  loyalty  which  marked  his  whole  life, 
Friedrich  Engels  carried  on  the  warfare 
against  such  ''  Marxists  "  long  after  the  death 
of  his  friend  and  associate. 

Fortunately,  the  last  ten  years  have  been 
marked  by  an  ever-increasing  reaction  against 
both  types  of  "  Marxism."  It  is  notably 
rare  nowadays  for  the  stupid  anti-intellectual- 
ist  cry  to  receive  serious  attention.  The 
movement  itself,  in  practically  every  country 
in  the  world,  is  becoming  more  liberal  and 
tolerant.     It  refuses  to  heed  the  stupid  dem-a- 

[126] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

gogic  suspicion  of  those  who  do  not  actually 
come  from  the  proletarian  class,  which  was 
at  one  time  so  potent  a  source  of  factional- 
ism; it  no  longer  indulges  in  heresy  trials, 
but  permits  the  fullest  possible  freedom  of 
opinion.  A  Bernstein  who  rejects  some  of 
the  most  important  of  Marx's  generalizations 
is  suffered  to  remain  in  the  Social  Democratic 
Party  of  Germany,  and  his  right  to  disagree 
with  Marx  is  upheld. 

By  many  very  thoughtful  observers  this 
liberalizing  tendency  has  been  hailed  as  a 
sure  and  certain  sign  of  the  waning  influence 
of  Marx.  It  has  been  interpreted  as  show- 
ing that  the  theories  of  Marx  are  being  aban- 
doned by  those  who  call  themselves  Marxian 
Socialists.  But  in  point  of  fact  —  so  far  as 
the  liberalizing  tendency  amounts  to  the  aban- 
donment of  crudely  exaggerated  forms  of 
Marxian  theories,  and  of  all  attempts  to 
create  a  sect  or  cult,  with  an  orthodox  phil- 
osophical and  economic  creed  —  it  must  be 
otherwise  interpreted.  It  is  not  a  reaction 
against  Marx,  but  against  that  "  Marxism  " 

[127] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

which  Marx  himself  so  despised,  and  which 
consisted  of  a  perverse  and  cruel  misrepre- 
sentation of  his  theories.  In  revolting 
against  this  "  Marxism  "  the  Socialist  move- 
ment is  in  fact  following  the  leadership  of 
Marx  himself,  and  the  tendency  represents  a 
wholesome  return  to  the  teachings  of  Marx. 


[128] 


Ill 


IT  is  quite  true  that  the  Socialist  movement 
has,  in  most  countries,  ceased  to  concern 
itself  mainly  with  the  propagation  of 
theories;  that  all  the  Socialist  parties  of  the 
world  pay  an  increasing  amount  of  attention 
to  practical  work  in  the  direction  of  social 
and  political  reform.  There  has  been  a 
rather  striking  development  of  opportunism, 
not  alone  in  Germany,  but  in  every  land 
where  Socialism  has  attained  political  im- 
portance. When  that  splendid  Socialist 
leader,  Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  was  first  elected 
to  the  German  Reichstag  he  was  strongly 
antl-parhamentarlan.  He  feared  that  the 
revolutionary  spirit  of  Socialism  would  be 
engulfed  In  parliamentary  issues.  His 
avowed  policy  then  was  to  enter  the  Reich- 
stag, make  a  speech  denouncing  the  capitalist 
system,  and  then  march  out,  quite  like  the 

[129] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

hero  of  the  nursery  rhyme!  That  was  the 
naive  idea  of  revolutionary  progress  which 
prevailed  at  that  time,  even  among  astute 
leaders  of  the  revolutionary  party. 

It  is  a  far  cry  from  that  opera  houfe  at- 
titude of  Liebknecht's  to  that  which  char- 
acterized the  last  years  of  his  life,  and  which 
characterizes  the  German  Social  Democracy 
to-day.  I  hardly  need  say  here  that  the 
Social  Democratic  Party  of  Germany  is  de- 
voted to  a  broad  comprehensive  policy  of 
social  and  industrial  reform;  that  it  does  not 
send  its  representatives  to  the  imperial  parlia- 
ment merely  to  make  denunciatory  speeches 
and  then  walk  out,  refusing  to  participate 
in  the  work  of  legislation.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  by  the  zeal  and  ability  with  which  the 
representatives  of  the  party  work  for  social 
reform  that  the  confidence  of  such  a  vast 
number  of  voters  has  been  won.  Singer, 
Bebel,  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  party 
know  very  well  that  this  is  the  case:  that 
only  a  very  small  minority  of  their  supporters 
understand  or  care  for  Socialist  theories. 

[  130] 


SiJelighis    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

■  ■■»■■■■     ■■■■■»■■—————— ^■■—^^W—^P»    »■    ■■■>  ■— I^W^^W^— — M— — ^W^^M^ 

It  must  be  freely  admitted  that  the  temper 
and  policy  of  the  Socialist  movement  hav6 
undergone  a  great  change.  This  change  has 
been  both  a  cause  and  a  result  of  growth. 
Where  the  Socialist  movement  is  numerically 
weak,  it  Is  invariably  characterized  by  fanat- 
ical bitterness  and  sectarian  intolerance  and 
dogmatism.  Its  first  political  victories,  often 
almost  insignificant  in  themselves,  are  won 
in  spite  of  these  characteristics,  most  often, 
perhaps,  through  peculiarly  favorable  cir- 
cumstances leading  to  the  election  of  the 
Socialist  candidate  in  spite  of,  rather  than 
because  of,  his  Socialism. 

It  has  been  the  universal  experience  that, 
as  soon  as  the  Socialists  of  any  country  suc- 
ceed In  electing  a  single  representative  to  an 
important  legislative  ofl^ce,  a  change  begins 
to  manifest  itself.  The  propaganda  be- 
comes less  sectarian  and  theoretical,  and 
more  practical.  The  temper  of  the  party 
loses  much  of  Its  arrogant  intolerance.  Its 
representatives  abandon  wild,  irresponsible 
talk  of  a  sudden  revolution,  and  cheap  sneers 

[131] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

at  social  reforms,  and  devote  themselves 
with  energy  to  the  task  of  securing  legislation 
for  the  immediate  betterment  of  the  lot  of 
their  class. 

The  reason  for  this  change  is  apparent. 
Brought  face  to  face  with  great  opportunities 
to  better  the  lot  of  the  toiling  masses,  they 
dare  not  neglect  them.  No  matter  how 
small  the  specific  reform  may  be,  considered 
by  and  of  itself,  the  instinctive  class  conscious- 
ness of  the  Socialists  prevents  them  from  op- 
posing or  ignoring  it  and  contenting  them- 
selves with  denunciations  of  capitalism  or 
prophecies  of  a  cooperative  commonwealth 
to  come.  It  is  easy  enough  for  the  propa- 
gandist, free  from  responsibility,  to  arraign 
the  capitalist  system,  demonstrate  the  need 
of  replacing  It  by  a  saner  and  juster  system, 
and  show  the  relatively  insignificant  impor- 
tance of  some  minor  reform,  such  as  the 
enactment  of  an  employer's  liability  law,  for 
example. 

In  office,  confronted  by  the  responsibility 
of    the    immediate    challenge,    the    Socialist 

[  132] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

dares  not  treat  such  questions  lightly.  Al- 
ways an  evolutionist  in  theory,  as  a  mere 
propagandist,  engaged  in  arousing  his  apa- 
thetic fellow-citizens,  he  not  infrequently  for- 
got his  evolutionary  theory  and  talked  as  if 
a  sudden  revolution,  changing  the  whole 
social  organism,  were  possible.  Election  to 
office  brings  immediate  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  no  such  change  is  possible;  that 
the  theory  of  evolution  is  made  up  of  vital 
facts.  He  comes  to  a  realization  of  the 
meaning  Marx  intended  to  convey  by  a 
favorite  phrase  of  his,  "  revolutionary  evo- 
lution." 

Thus,  in  the  crucible  of  actual  experience, 
the  rivalry,  hatred,  and  contempt  of  the 
Socialist  for  the  social  reformer,  and  of  the 
social  reformer  for  the  Socialist,  are  melted 
The  earnest  social  reformer  soon  finds  that 
when  he  wants  child-labor  legislation,  factory 
laws,  tenement-house  reforms,  industrial  in 
surance,  and  other  such  reforms,  the  funda- 
mental and  instinctive  class  consciousness  of 
the  Socialist  can  always  be  relied  upon.     In 

[  133] 


Sidelights    on    Conteynporary    Socialism 

this  way,  the  Socialist  party  In  almost  ev^ery 
European  country  has  become  the  party  of 
social  reform. 

This,  then,  is  the  basis  for  the  prevailing 
opinion  that  the  modern  Socialist  movement 
has  lost  its  revolutionary  character  and  be- 
come a  simple  reformatory  movement.  The 
validity  of  that  judgment  depends  altogether 
upon  a  certain  narrow  Interpretation  of  the 
word  "  revolution."  There  can  be  no  seri- 
ous difference  of  opinion  upon  the  point  once 
that  definition  of  the  word  "  revolution  "  is 
accepted. 

To  Marx,  more  than  to  any  other  man, 
belongs  the  credit  of  associating  the  Socialist 
movement  with  the  concept  of  a  social  "  revo- 
lution." The  phrase  looms  large  in  the 
celebrated  Communist  Manifesto,  and  in  all 
the  subsequent  literature  of  Marxian  Social- 
Ism.  But  Marx  used  the  term  "  social  revo- 
lution," as  he  used  so  many  other  common- 
place terms,  in  a  very  different  sense  from 
that  which  common  usage  had  imparted  to 
it.     To   understand   the   significance   of   the 

[134] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

term  In  the  literature  of  Marxian  So- 
cialism, therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  get  at 
the  meaning  which  Marx  ascribed  to  it,  and 
which  his  most  representative  and  authentic 
exponents  have  accepted. 

Whereas,  to  most  persons,  the  term 
"  social  revolution "  means  a  method,  to 
Marx  it  meant  simply  a  result,  quite  regard- 
less of  the  method  by  which  the  result  was 
attained.  To  most  persons  revolution  sug- 
gests street  riotings,  barricades,  insurrections, 
intrigues,  conspiracies,  and  coups  d'etat.  It 
means  the  sudden  overturning  of  things, 
ousting  governments  and  dynasties.  In  this 
narrow  sense  the  French  people  have  been 
called  the  most  revolutionary  people  in  Eu- 
rope. Before  Marx,  the  crude  Socialist 
thought  of  the  time  regarded  such  "  revolu- 
tionary "  methods  as  the  natural  way  to  at- 
tain the  realization  of  its  goal.  Against  that 
sort  of  "  revolutionary  "  effort  Marx  directed 
his  splendid  genius  for  political  leadership. 

To   Marx  that  sort   of  revolutionary   ac- 
tivity was  purely  Utopian  and  altogether  un- 

[135] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

scientific.  He  lost  no  opportunity  to  assail 
it  and  make  it  the  butt  of  his  superb  satire. 
He  pointed  out  that  such  "  revolutions  "  are 
not  at  all  social  revolutions.  After  a  suc- 
cessful coup  de  force,  resulting  in  the  over- 
turning of  a  dynasty  or  the  changing  of  the 
form  of  government,  people  continue  to  main- 
tain the  chief  fundamental  social  relations  of 
the  old  regime.  The  class  struggle  persists, 
and  the  wage-earner  Is  still  exploited  by  the 
capitalist  as  before.  What  he  means  by 
social  revolution  Is  a  thorough  transforma- 
tion of  these  social  relations,  the  abolition  of 
class  divisions  which  rest  upon  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  proletariat.  This  result  is  the 
revolution.  The  transformation  of  the  so- 
cial forces  of  production  to  social  property, 
however  accomplished,  Is  the  revolution.  It 
is  not  more  or  less  revolutionary  whether  at- 
tained by  peaceful  political  action  or  by  torch 
and  sword  at  the  barricades,  whether  the 
process  of  its  accomplishment  takes  fifty 
years  or  is  the  result  of  a  sudden,  cyclonic 
movement. 

['36] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that,  assuming 
this  to  be  a  fair  interpretation  of  Marx's 
concept  of  the  social  revolution,  the  change 
which  has  come  over  the  Socialist  movement 
is  not  of  necessity  a  departure  from  the  revo- 
lutionary path  as  Marx  understood  the  term, 
though  it  is  a  very  great  departure  from  the 
older  revolutionary  concept  which  he  assailed, 
and  which  still  clings  to  the  term  in  our 
common  usage.  It  must  also  be  admitted 
that  the  followers  of  Marx  did  not  always 
conform  their  speech  and  their  policy  to  the 
philosophical  distinction  he  Imposed  upon 
the  term;  that  all  too  often  they  lapsed  back 
into  what  their  teacher  derided  as  a  purely 
Utopian  concept  of  revolution.  It  may  also 
be  admitted  with  perfect  candor  that  Marx 
himself  occasionally  lapsed  into  that  Uto- 
pianism  against  which  his  life  and  thought 
were,  as  a  whole,  so  finely  devoted. 

So  much  is  granted.  It  will  not  avail, 
therefore,  to  quote  isolated  utterances  or  ac- 
tions to  prove  that  the  thought  of  a  sudden, 
decisive  revolution  sometimes  possessed  the 

[137] 


SUelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

mind  of  Marx.  Against  these  lapses  from 
the  scientific,  evolutionary  attitude  must  be 
set  the  overwhelming  testimony  of  his 
thought  as  a  whole,  and,  more  important 
even  than  that,  of  his  practice. 


[138] 


IV 


NOTHING  could  be  more  fallacious 
than  the  attempt  to  interpret  the  op- 
portunistic development  of  contempo- 
rary Socialism  as  a  progressive  abandonment 
of  the  teachings  of  Marx.  The  assumption 
upon  which  it  rests,  that  opportunism  and 
Marxism  are  antithetical  concepts,  is  entirely 
false.  Marx  was  nothing  if  not  an  oppor- 
tunist, using  that  term  in  its  best,  and  strictest, 
sense.  He  was  so  far  removed  from  those 
intransigents  of  the  Socialist  movement,  who 
scorn  the  idea  that  the  Socialists  should  par- 
ticipate in  the  movement  for  social  reform 
through  legislative  channels,  as  the  imagina- 
tion can  conceive.  He  had  the  profoundest 
contempt  for  all  who  sought  to  bind  the 
movement  to  that  abortive  attitude.  I  make 
the  claim  that  the  tendency  of  contemporary 

[  139] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Socialism  to  concern  itself  with  a  programme 
of  immediate  social  reforms,  palliative  meas- 
ures for  the  amelioration  of  the  victims  of 
the  social  struggle,  within  the  existing  order, 
represents  a  return  to  the  most  important 
teachings  of  Marx,  not  a  departure  from 
them. 

In  the  Communist  Manifesto,  that  work 
which  may  be  said  to  be  the  corner-stone  of 
modern  scientific  Socialism,  we  find  him  lay- 
ing emphasis  upon  the  fact  that  the  trans- 
formation which  he  calls  the  social  revolution 
is  not  to  be  a  sudden  act.  He  speaks  of  the 
"  first  step  In  the  revolution "  being  the 
struggle  for  political  democracy,  the  attain- 
ment of  the  franchise  by  the  proletariat. 
That  accomplished,  the  proletariat  is  to 
wrest,  "  by  degrees,"  the  control  of  the  social 
productive  forces  from  the  hated  bourgeoisie. 
His  insistence  upon  the  necessity  of  a  "  first 
step,"  and  of  a  conquest  of  the  economic  re- 
sources "  by  degrees,"  shows  very  clearly 
that,  from  the  first,  Marx  repudiated  the  old 
notion    of    sudden,    catastrophic    revolution. 

[  140] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

His  ideal  was  one  of  the  "  revolutionary 
evolution." 

In  the  same  profound  and  epoch-making 
pamphlet  Marx  lays  stress  upon  the  fact  that 
the  Socialists,  because  they  accept  the  class 
struggle  as  their  fundamental  and  guiding 
philosophy,  must  not  confine  themselves  to 
working  for  the  attainment  of  the  ultimate 
interest  of  the  proletariat,  the  abolition  of 
wage-labor  and  its  inevitable  exploitation  and 
oppression,  but  must  participate  in  the  "  im- 
mediate struggle";  that  they  must  take 
their  own  the  "  momentary  interests  "  of  the 
workers  as  well  as  their  ultimate  aim.  In 
pursuance  of  that  thought  he  outlined  a  pro- 
gramme of  social  reform  upon  which  So- 
cialists and  progressive  social  reformers  are 
making  common  cause  to-day  in  every  coun- 
try where  the  Socialist  parties  are  represented 
in  the  legislatures. 

Four  years  after  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo was  published,  in  the  aftermath  of  the 
revolutionary  struggle  of  1848,  some  of  the 
most  romantic  of  his  co-revolutionists  were 

[141] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

urging  the  workers  to  insurrection.  They 
were  obsessed  by  the  notion  that  the  workers 
could  at  once  seize  the  reins  of  power  and 
establish  Socialist  republics  in  the  most  ad- 
vanced countries  of  Europe.  Marx  assailed 
these  romanticists  with  merciless  satire  and 
Invective.  He  denounced  them  because  they 
would  "  substitute  revolutionary  phrase  for 
revolutionary  evolution,"  and  while  the  im- 
patient romanticists  assured  their  followers 
that  they  could  win  Immediately,  Marx  told 
them  that  It  would  take  perhaps  fifty  years, 
not  to  accomplish  the  social  revolution  In- 
deed, but  to  make  themselves  "  worthy  of 
political  power!  " 

When  Ferdinand  Lassalle  attempted.  In 
1862,  to  enlist  the  support  of  Marx  for  an 
Insurrection  In  Germany,  urging  him  to  as- 
sist In  raising  funds  for  the  purchase  of 
muskets  and  ammunition,  Marx  Indignantly 
refused,  and  the  Incident  led  to  the  termi- 
nation of  the  friendship  of  the  two  men 
when  they  met  In  London  a  few  months  later. 

[  142  ] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Marx  understood  as  Lassalle  could  never  do 
the  great  fact  of  social  evolution. 

How  much  of  an  opportunist  Marx  was, 
is  best  shown  by  the  history  of  the  Interna- 
tional Workingmen's  Association.  Of  far 
greater  importance  than  his  contributions  to 
political  economy,  and  Inferior  only  to  his 
sociological  discoveries,  the  practical  work  of 
Marx  in  the  development  of  that  great  Inter- 
national organization  of  the  proletariat  has 
not  yet  received  just  recognition.  It  is  im- 
possible to  read  the  history  of  the  Inter- 
national and  avoid  the  conviction  that  Marx 
was  endowed  with  great  political  sagacity, 
amounting  almost  to  genius. 

The  importance  of  the  International  to  us, 
in  the  present  discussion,  lies  in  the  light  its 
history  sheds  upon  the  mind  and  temper  of 
its  great  leader.  Marx  initiated  the  move- 
ment, wrote  Its  address,  or  platform,  formu- 
lated its  rules,  and  dictated  Its  policies.  He 
wrote  every  one  of  its  official  pronuncia- 
mentos.     Never     was      there     a     political 

[  143  ] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

"  boss  "  who  so  completely  ruled  his  organiza- 
tion. For  the  opportunism  which  character- 
ized the  International  Marx  must  therefore 
be  held  directly  responsible. 

It  was  Marx  who  arranged  that  the  trades 
unions  of  Great  Britain  should  cooperate 
with  such  bitter  enemies  of  ordinary  trades 
union  policies  as  Bright  and  Cobden  in  rous- 
ing the  public  opinion  of  Great  Britain  to 
the  support  of  President  Lincoln  and  the 
Union  cause,  and  to  vigorous  opposition  to 
the  sympathy  of  the  government  and  the  rul- 
ing class  in  general  for  the  Southern  Con- 
federacy, which  the  government  at  one  time 
practically  decided  to  recognize  as  an  inde- 
pendent power.  It  was  Marx,  too,  who,  in 
the  same  way,  brought  about  the  coopera- 
tion of  all  the  radical  forces  in  the  struggle 
for  franchise  reform  a  few  years  later. 

Here,  then,  was  opportunism  with  a 
vengeance!  Marx  was  not  unaware  that 
there  were  elements  in  the  International  to 
whom  such  a  policy  was  repellent  in  the  ex- 
treme.   There     were     many     followers     of 

[144] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

Proudhon,  the  French  anarchist  leader,  who 
were  very  bitter  in  their  opposition  to  Marx 
on  account  of  his  opportunism.  Of  these 
critics  Marx  wrote,  in  a  letter  to  his  friend 
Kugelmann:  *'  They  brag  about  science  and 
know  nothing.  They  look  with  contempt,  as 
revolutionists,  on  any  concerted  action  of  the 
working  classes,  and  they  treat  with  contempt 
any  idea  of  making  use  of  the  legislature  for 
anything,  as,  e.  g.,  for  shortening  the  hours 
of  labor." 

In  the  masterly  inaugural  address  of  the 
International,  which  Marx  wrote,  the  Ten 
Hours'  Act  was  hailed  as  being  "  not  merely 
a  great  practical  result,"  but  as  "  the  victory 
of  a  principle."  Even  the  cooperative  so- 
cieties, at  which  Marx  had  been  disposed  to 
sneer  In  1848,  were  praised  and  heralded  as 
a  sign  that  wage-labor  was  a  transitory  eco- 
nomic form,  destined  to  be  replaced  by  asso- 
ciated free  labor.  And  the  first  congress  of 
the  International,  at  Geneva,  adopted  reso- 
lutions, most  of  them  written  by  Marx,  in 
favor  of  such  reforms  as  the   abolition   of 

[  145  ] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

child  labor;  regulation  of  women's  labor  by 
the  state;  limitation  of  the  hours  of  labor  for 
adults  to  ten  per  day;  direct  taxation;  and 
so  on. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that,  altogether  Irrespec- 
tive of  the  merits  of  the  controversy  which 
divides  the  opportunists  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment from  their  intransigent  comrades,  It 
cannot  be  said  that  the  movement  becomes 
less  Marxian  by  becoming  more  opportun- 
istic. Marx  was  himself  an  opportunist  of  a 
very  pronounced  type.  In  his  mind,  the  ac- 
tual union  of  the  workers  was  the  supremely 
important  thing.  He  wanted  movement 
above  all  else.  He  revealed  the  principle  by 
which  his  whole  life  was  guided  in 'the  letter 
he  wrote  to  the  German  Socialists  in  1875, 
when  the  union  of  the  Lassallian  and  Marx- 
ian forces  was  being  negotiated:  "Every 
step  of  real  movement  is  worth  a  dozen  pro- 
grammes." 

Without  expressing  here  any  opinion  upon 
the  wisdom  or  otherwise  of  the  Socialists  en- 
tering into  such  compacts  as  the  one  upon 

[146] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

which  the  British  Labor  Party  is  based,  it  is 
impossible  for  me  to  resist  the  conclusion  that 
Mr.  Hardie  with  his  belief  in  and  alliance 
with  the  Labor  Party  is  much  more  in  accord 
with  the  teaching  and  example  of  Marx  than 
are  his  intransigent  critics,  even  though  the 
latter  so  loudly  invoke  the  name  and  author- 
ity of  Marx. 


[147] 


y 


IT  would  be  disingenuous  to  deny  that  some 
of  Marx's  theories  have  been  openly  aban- 
doned by  not  a  few  Socialists,  and  that 
they  have  been  greatly  modified  by  others  in 
response  to  the  searching  criticism  to  which 
they  have  been  subjected.  Marx  himself  re- 
garded monopoly-price  as  something  excep- 
tional, an  abrogation  of  the  law  of  value. 
Since  he  wrote  Das  Kapital,  the  exceptions  to 
his  law  of  value  have  become  more  numerous, 
as  a  result  of  the  development  of  great  mo- 
nopolies and  near  monopolies.  The  value  of 
a  great  many  commodities  is  determined  by 
their  marginal  utility,  quite  irrespective  of 
the  social  labor  actually  embodied  in  them  or 
necessary  to  their  reproduction. 

Then,  too,  some  of  the  sweeping  generali- 
zations which  Marx  made,  and  which  his  fol- 
lowers long  believed  to  be  absolutely  true, 

[148] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

have  not  stood  well  the  test  of  history  and 
close  analysis.  The  recognition  of  this  fact 
has  quite  profoundly  influenced  Socialist  pol- 
icy. It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that  the 
result  has  been  to  develop  the  movement  quite 
in  harmony  with  that  broad  spirit  of  oppor- 
tunism which  Marx  himself  so  well  and  so 
bravely  exemplified. 

Take,  for  example,  his  theory  of  agricul- 
tural concentration.  Marx  firmly  believed 
and  confidently  predicted  that,  within  a  com- 
paratively short  time,  the  small  farm  would 
cease  to  exist.  He  saw  the  small  farms,  and 
the  farms  of  moderate  size,  disappear,  swal- 
lowed up  by  the  bigger  ones,  and  the  whole 
industry  of  agriculture  dominated  by  im- 
mense capital.  His  followers  excelled  their 
master's  confidence  in  the  truth  of  his  fore- 
cast. 

It  is  now  recognized  by  all  thoughtful  So- 
cialists that  this  forecast  has  been  completely 
belied  by  the  actual  facts  of  agricultural  evo- 
lution. The  small  farm  has  more  than  held 
its  own,  the  expected  concentration  of  the  in- 

[  149  ] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

dustry  has  not  taken  place;  there  has  in  fact 
been  a  well-marked  tendency  In  the  opposite 
direction  of  decentralization.  Irrigation, 
"  dry  farming,"  and  the  mass  of  improved 
methods  resulting  from  the  application  of 
science  to  agriculture  have  revolutionized  the 
industry,  but  In  quite  another  way  than  Marx 
predicted. 

Of  course,  so  long  as  the  farming-class 
was  looked  upon  as  a  rapidly  disappearing 
one,  a  class  whose  Immediate  Interests  must 
of  necessity,  and  in  an  Increasing  degree,  be 
opposed  to  the  Interests  of  the  proletariat, 
the  Socialist  propaganda  made  small  headway 
in  agricultural  communities.  So  long  as  that 
mistaken  generalization  obsessed  the  minds  of 
the  followers  of  Marx  they  were  little  dis- 
posed to  appeal  to  the  farmers,  or  to  con- 
cede that  the  status  of  the  farmer  and  a  be- 
lief in  Socialism  were  quite  compatible.  To 
treat  the  farmer  as  a  negligible  quantity,  as  a 
survival  member  of  a  rapidly  disappearing 
class,  of  no  account  politically,  was  the  nat- 
ural outcome  of  that  generalization. 

[150] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

When  astute  political  leaders  of  the  So- 
cialist movement  like  Dr.  Adler,  of  Austria, 
and  acute  theoreticians  like  Herr  Bernstein, 
of  Germany,  demonstrated  the  delusive  char- 
acter of  Marx's  forecast,  and  proved  that  the 
Socialists  in  those  countries  must  either  recast 
their  agrarian  policy,  so  as  to  make  a  success- 
ful appeal  to  the  farming  class,  or  abandon 
all  hopes  of  attaining  political  success,  mod- 
ern Socialism  entered  upon  a  new  phase.  Of 
course,  there  was  some  strife,  a  bitter  conflict 
between  the  old  orthodoxy  and  the  new  truth, 
and  the  complete  breaking-up  of  the  inter- 
national Socialist  movement  was  confidently 
predicted  by  many  of  its  enemies.  But 
nothing  of  the  sort  happened.  The  leaders 
of  the  movement  set  themselves  to  the  task 
of  studying  the  whole  problem  of  their  po- 
sition toward  the  farmer. 

They  found  that  the  economic  interest  of 
the  small  farmer  was  not  so  antagonistic  to 
the  interest  of  the  industrial  proletariat  as 
they  had  long  believed;  they  found  that  the 
farmer  needed  Socialism  almost,  if  not  quite, 

[151] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

as  badly  as  the  factory  worker.  So  success- 
ful has  the  Socialist  propaganda  among  farm- 
ers been,  without  compromising  its  revolu- 
tionary spirit,  that  many  of  the  greatest 
strongholds  of  the  movement,  both  in  Eu- 
rope and  America,  are  in  agricultural  dis- 
tricts. The  kingdom  of  Saxony  is  mainly  de- 
pendent upon  agriculture,  but  it  is  known  as 
"  Red  Saxony  "  on  account  of  the  strength 
of  the  Socialist  movement  there.  In  the 
United  States  we  find  Oklahoma  an  agrarian 
state,  taking  a  leading  place  in  the  Socialist 
propaganda. 

In  like  manner,  the  persistence  of  the  petty 
retail  stores,  and  of  petty  industries,  contrary 
to  another  of  the  sweeping  generalizations 
of  Marx,  has  profoundly  influenced  the  pol- 
icy of  the  Socialist  movement.  While  its 
main  appeal  is  and  must  of  necessity  be  to 
the  actual  proletariat,  the  Socialist  propa- 
ganda does  not  neglect  the  small  shopkeeper 
or  the  professional  man.  In  most  countries, 
but  especially  in  the  United  States,  the  actual 
wage-workers   constitute   a   minority   of  the 

[152] 


Sidelights    on    Contemporary    Socialism 

population.  The  Socialists  recognize  this 
fact.  So  there  has  developed  a  new  and 
broader  concept  of  the  movement.  Only  a 
very  tiny  and  insignificant  minority  now  ever 
thinks  of  demanding  that  the  Socialist  move- 
ment shall  be  limited  to  the  wage-earning 
class. 

That  greatest  of  Socialist  political  leaders, 
Liebknecht,  in  his  later  years  insisted  that 
when  the  Socialists  used  the  term  "  working 
class  "  they  Included  In  Its  meaning  "  all  who 
live  exclusively  or  principally  by  means  of 
their  own  labor,  and  who  do  not  grow  rich 
through  the  work  of  others."  Thus,  he 
would  Include  the  small  farmers  and  small 
shopkeepers,  as  well  as  a  majority  of  the  pro- 
fessional classes.  He  declared  that  the  Ger- 
man Social  Democracy  was  the  party  of  all 
the  people  with  the  exception  of  about  two 
hundred  thousand.  "  If  It  Is  limited  to  the 
wage-earners,"  he  said,  *'  Socialism  cannot 
conquer.  If  It  Includes  all  the  workers  and 
the  moral  and  Intellectual  elite  of  the  nation, 
its  victory  Is  certain." 

[153] 


VI 


To  sum  up:  There  may  be  said  to  be 
two  kinds  of  "  Marxism,"  the  one  con- 
sisting of  a  body  of  theoretical  and 
philosophical  generalizations,  the  other  of 
certain  principles  of  working-class  action,  pre- 
cepts, and  examples  of  tactics  for  the  move- 
ment. This  "  practical  Marxism  "  has  been 
for  a  long  time  obscured  by  the  Marxism  the- 
ory, and  neglected  in  consequence.  Now  that 
critical  examination  has  forced  the  abandon- 
ment of  some  of  his  theories,  and  the  modifi- 
cation of  some  others,  Marx,  the  leader,  the 
tactician,  the  statesman,  is  taking  the  place 
of  Marx  the  theorist  to  some  extent. 

Hence  the  paradox  that  the  Influence  of 
Marx  upon  the  Socialist  movement  of  to-day 
is  increasing  just  as  rapidly  and  as  surely  as 
it  is  breaking  away  from  dogmatic  Marxism. 

[154] 


rX 
56f 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


lilli  '^nuh^n^'^  REGIOMAL  LIBRARY  CACILITY 


AA    000  525  820    7 


